Sinead O'Connor: Some Burning Questions for the Pope

[Wombaticus Rex]

Reminds me of this odd detail from John Taylor Gatto, who I respect a ton...I think hardcore activists just get fatigued and frustrated into mistakes like this:

source: Bionomics, By John Taylor Gatto
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/2k.htm

Thirty-five years later, Kennedy’s lofty Romanized rhetoric and metaphor were replaced by the tough-talking wise guy idiom of Time, instructing its readers in a 1996 cover story that "Democracy is in the worst interest of national goals." As Time reporters put it, "The modern world is too complex to allow the man or woman in the street to interfere in its management." Democracy was deemed a system for losers.

As Time reporters put it, "The modern world is too complex to allow the man or woman in the street to interfere in its management."

That's some great copy so I wanted to get the rest of the citation so I could use it for my own project...

Let's dig.

Time Magazine. January 23, 1995.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,926 ... 23,00.html



There's actually THREE cover articles....so the article in question is either "Hyperdemocracy" or....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 57,00.html

..."Look Who's Talking" about the rise of conservative talk radio or...
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,982262,00.html

..."The Mind of Gingrich's Gurus" which is quite an interesting piece in it's own right.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,982259,00.html

However, that quote appears nowhere in any of those three articles. Upon a google search, it does show up in an earlier article by....by John Taylor Gatto....

source: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE NATIONAL SOCIALIZATION OF CHILDREN, by John Taylor Gatto
http://www.spinninglobe.net/natsockids.htm

In January of 1995 Time magazine ran a cover story ostensibly to protest the unwarranted reach talk show hosts have into the public mind. Under that surface argument a revealing sub-text played which I can paraphrase as this. "Too much democracy is in the worst interests of our national goals: the world is too complex to allow common people to shape the decisions of management".

It would definitely appear that Gatto is attributing his own words to Time reporters and that's some bullshit, no matter how much I respect the guy.

That said, these are ultimately very small details in the face of very big problems. Ultimately I've got love for Sinnead, too. We just gotta help ourselves maintain higher standards.

[Jeff]

Thanks WR, good work.

[Simulist]

If what she says (about clerical child sexual abuse dating back to 320, CE) is true — and I'm inclined to believe that it is — I'd sure like to find it.

You're kidding, right?

The way I phrased the sentence you quoted might make it seem that way — because it is blatantly obvious that clerical child sexual abuse has been going on for an exceedingly long time — but what I'm trying to determine is a bit more than just that.

What I'm trying to determine is — beyond the clear moral corruption of the Church, which indeed has persisted from its beginning — if there has been an organized, systemic, and hidden practice of sexually traumatizing children for purposes other than what is immediately obvious, such as trauma based mind control.

I don't think MK-ULTRA's Sidney Gottlieb and "friends" came up with that all on their own, and if there is a legacy of this dating back to ancient times, I want to find it.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Unfortunately, I've not been able to find any such information at all in the Murphy Report. There were references to "320 children," "320 complainants," and "320 people who complained of child sexual abuse during the period 1975 - 2004" — even a page "320" — but nothing whatsoever that I could find to confirm this claim by Ms. O'Connor.

If what she says (about clerical child sexual abuse dating back to 320, CE) is true — and I'm inclined to believe that it is — I'd sure like to find it.

I'm only going by Wikipedia here, but there is evidence of abuse (and some understanding of the causes of it) going back to 381-384 AD, when a saying (reportedly) became commonplace around St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, probably the oldest working Christian monastery in the world.

The saying was that "with wine and boys around, monks have no need of the devil to tempt them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cath ... _Monastery

Since the saying is a translation from the Latin of the era, maybe the reference to boys is actually about homosexuality between the monks and priests themselves (very common) rather than clerical abuse of children. It's hard to say. But considering the cultures that the early European Church sprang from, where it wasn't uncommon for an adult male of higher social standing and education (such as a monk or priest) to take a young boy as his protege and occasional sexual victim, it seems quite likely that the problems have been there from the start.

Saying that, a possibly mistranslated overheard saying that might have been going around a monastery in the 300s isn't the kind of evidence I'd want to go to trial with.

EDIT: Damn you, Simulist, this whole post is pointless now. Posting regardless.

[Simulist]

Thanks, Ahab. I had never heard that phrase before — and it is interesting.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I don't think MK-ULTRA's Sidney Gottlieb and "friends" came up with that all on their own, and if there is a legacy of this dating back to ancient times, I want to find it.

Is there material that connects Gottlieb to the BLUEBIRD projects?

[AlicetheKurious]

Reminds me of this odd detail from John Taylor Gatto, who I respect a ton...I think hardcore activists just get fatigued and frustrated into mistakes like this:

Excellent example, WR. But even if you respect the writer, "fatigue" and "frustration" are no excuse for such sloppiness, which unfortunately is all too common and all too rarely questioned when it happens to serve a pet agenda. Another modern example from this information age is how often it's repeated in respected newspapers that Iranian president Ahmadinejad "threatened to wipe Israel off the map," and even "threatened genocide," leading 103 Congress members to co-sponsor a bill calling the UN to charge him with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The saying was that "with wine and boys around, monks have no need of the devil to tempt them."

There's another old saying, "Where God has his church the Devil will have his chapel." Oooh. Evidence of satan worship in the Church!

[Wombaticus Rex]

I was definitely being polite, Alice, and I do thank you for calling me on it.

There is no doubt in my mind that Gatto was perfectly aware of what he was doing. As I get older, though, I get less interested in proving intent, you know? Still, better to have said nothing than to offer up a couple weak lines of rationalization, so I appreciate the nudge.

[barracuda]

I don't think it's possible to overstate the case for the institutionalisation of child abuse, pedophilia, and the protection of accused priests by the Vatican. O'Connor's anger is in the right spirit. From March of this year:

Pope implicated in German abuse scandal, neglected to inform authorities of pedophile priest who went on to abuse more kids

But that's the big picture. In the real world, complaining about the wording of O'Connor's quotation only helps diffuse the reality of the history which is plain to see, at least where I live. The subject of this article is my next-door neighbor, who is suing the Oakland diocese for refusing to seek out victims of the abuse which occurred in the Catholic Church two blocks from my house, the very church I take my daughter to. I would never - ever - trust the priests of this or any other Catholic Church around my child without the closest supervision. I don't even let them near her to pat her shoulder, or speak with her. As far as I'm concerned they are all members of an organisation which has been proven to willingly harbor and protect pederasts.

[AlicetheKurious]

I would never - ever - trust the priests of this or any other Catholic Church around my child without the closest supervision. I don't even let them near her to pat her shoulder, or speak with her. As far as I'm concerned they are all members of an organisation which has been proven to willingly harbor and protect pederasts.

I was going to write about all the cases of sexual abuse of kids that have personally affected people I know, but there's no need. It so happens that none involved priests. Thank God I've never been molested, and I grew up in a Catholic school run by nuns, with lots of priests around. Many of my male relatives have received an excellent education in Jesuit school, and as far as I know there's never been a problem (other than their famous discipline and enormous work-load). Nevertheless, as a rule, it's a good idea not to leave your child alone with any adult, especially if they're too young to talk. That includes relatives you're not absolutely sure of, teachers, family friends, coaches, other kids' parents or anybody else. Let your daughter know what's acceptable and what she should tell you about right away, no matter what. It's terrible, and the risk is small, but still not worth it.

[hanshan]

I don't think it's possible to overstate the case for the institutionalisation of child abuse, pedophilia, and the protection of accused priests by the Vatican. O'Connor's anger is in the right spirit. From March of this year:

Pope implicated in German abuse scandal, neglected to inform authorities of pedophile priest who went on to abuse more kids

But that's the big picture. In the real world, complaining about the wording of O'Connor's quotation only helps diffuse the reality of the history which is plain to see, at least where I live. The subject of this article is my next-door neighbor, who is suing the Oakland diocese for refusing to seek out victims of the abuse which occurred in the Catholic Church two blocks from my house, the very church I take my daughter to. I would never - ever - trust the priests of this or any other Catholic Church around my child without the closest supervision. I don't even let them near her to pat her shoulder, or speak with her. As far as I'm concerned they are all members of an organisation which has been proven to willingly harbor and protect pederasts.

ayup, barra nails it, again

I don't think MK-ULTRA's Sidney Gottlieb and "friends" came up with that all on their own, and if there is a legacy of this dating back to ancient times, I want to find it.

Is there material that connects Gottlieb to the BLUEBIRD projects?

you're joking, right?

Unfortunately, I've not been able to find any such information at all in the Murphy Report. There were references to "320 children," "320 complainants," and "320 people who complained of child sexual abuse during the period 1975 - 2004" — even a page "320" — but nothing whatsoever that I could find to confirm this claim by Ms. O'Connor.

If what she says (about clerical child sexual abuse dating back to 320, CE) is true — and I'm inclined to believe that it is — I'd sure like to find it.

I'm only going by Wikipedia here, but there is evidence of abuse (and some understanding of the causes of it) going back to 381-384 AD, when a saying (reportedly) became commonplace around St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, probably the oldest working Christian monastery in the world.

The saying was that "with wine and boys around, monks have no need of the devil to tempt them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cath ... _Monastery

Since the saying is a translation from the Latin of the era, maybe the reference to boys is actually about homosexuality between the monks and priests themselves (very common) rather than clerical abuse of children. It's hard to say. But considering the cultures that the early European Church sprang from, where it wasn't uncommon for an adult male of higher social standing and education (such as a monk or priest) to take a young boy as his protege and occasional sexual victim, it seems quite likely that the problems have been there from the start.

Saying that, a possibly mistranslated overheard saying that might have been going around a monastery in the 300s isn't the kind of evidence I'd want to go to trial with.

EDIT: Damn you, Simulist, this whole post is pointless now. Posting regardless.

Good points, all. The attitudes towards & practices of sexuality in the ancient world
were vastly different than the modern mentality can grasp, certainly w/out a deep/broad understanding of the era, which includes facility w/ the language. That said,
a puriitanical background re: sexuality, ala the American ideal, will most certainly preclude a sane approach to same. However, that The Catholic Church, both as an institution, & as a mindset, has some nefarious behaviors to account for is w/out doubt.
There is no way one can paint this so it comes out clean. None.

If what she says (about clerical child sexual abuse dating back to 320, CE) is true — and I'm inclined to believe that it is — I'd sure like to find it.

You're kidding, right?

The way I phrased the sentence you quoted might make it seem that way — because it is blatantly obvious that clerical child sexual abuse has been going on for an exceedingly long time — but what I'm trying to determine is a bit more than just that.

What I'm trying to determine is — beyond the clear moral corruption of the Church, which indeed has persisted from its beginning — if there has been an organized, systemic, and hidden practice of sexually traumatizing children for purposes other than what is immediately obvious, such as trauma based mind control.

I don't think MK-ULTRA's Sidney Gottlieb and "friends" came up with that all on their own, and if there is a legacy of this dating back to ancient times, I want to find it.

Why not? The entire Catholic experience is a process of brainwashing. What's one more arena?
Sim - fabulous distillation


...

[Wombaticus Rex]

I was being serious, actually. I have read a ton of articles connecting him because he's a name that always gets brought up -- I'm still unaware of any documentation actually connecting him. I think he joined the agency in 1951 and started heading up TSS in 1953? That's post-BLUEBIRD, right?

Lately I think most of what I "know" about this material is bullshit speculation...reading A Terrible Mistake really drove that home. I don't care if these people are monsters and assholes -- I still want actual data points instead of echo chamber slander, you know? You know.

Edit: From "Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press" pg. 195

The CIA's Office of Security, headed at the time by Sheffield Edwards, developed a hypnosis project called Bluebird, whose object was to get an individual "to do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation."

The first Bluebird operations were conducted in Japan in October 1950 and were reportedly witnessed by Richard Helms.

Of course, there's no documentation at all for a years-long project at Harvard involving poor old Ted. So let's all bear in mind that when a wombat asks questions about documentation, it's not because a wombat is debunking, rejecting, refusing to believe -- I'm just asking if there's any documentation.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

There's another old saying, "Where God has his church the Devil will have his chapel." Oooh. Evidence of satan worship in the Church!

I've got more evidence than that of devil worship in the church. Behold! The North Door!

Devil's doors are structural features found in the north wall of some medieval and older churches in the United Kingdom... They have their origins in the early Christian era, when pre-Christian worship was still popular, and were often merely symbolic structures—although they were sometimes used as genuine entrances...

Churches were... built on the site of former pagan or other pre-Christian places of worship. Such places were still considered sacred by their former worshippers, who would often continue to visit them. A doorway would often be inserted in the "heathen" north side of the church to allow them to enter and worship on the site. Because of the association of that side with the Devil, the name "Devil's door" became established.

A later, and more common, purpose ... was to allow the Devil to escape from the church. Most of the doors that remain have been bricked up—reputedly to prevent the Devil re-entering.

But if they bricked up his only means of escape, that means he's trapped inside. The De'il's in the Kirk!

I'm a Catholic too, and was never molested to my knowledge. I quite like the priests I've known over the years, mainly because a lot of them were just like me - lonely drunks, good for nothing but talking and preaching at others, while subsisting as lazy, ungrateful parasites on their host communities.

I don't see anything wrong with what Sinead has said. She's Irish, and in Ireland the Church and the State were one, and all the standard abuses that come along automatically with such a political set-up occurred. No one is going to die or be imprisoned because she might have got a date or a quote a bit wrong in a statement. Many have died and been imprisoned (have killed themselves, in despair, and been imprisoned in bodies they no longer trust) because of what the Pope got wrong, and keeps getting wrong, deliberately, and of set purpose.

[slimmouse]

Its really quite simple, when you have a logical chew on it.

If the Catholic church, along with its leadership are such the bastions of society they claim to be, they wouldnt have the slightest hesitation whatsoever in scourging the house of the "few bad apples". I dont doubt that in the field of Paedophilia, this is indeed a few bad apples. You see - the majority of humanity IMHO are decent people, so why wouldnt the Catholic church be composed of its fair share of good caring folks, who greatly outnumber the charlottans ?

The problem is of course that it isnt a bastion of society, nor since its inception has it ever been. How is that even remotely possible, when its entire existence - its very foundation - is based upon false pretenses ? The truth, AFAIC is that it has spent its entire existence co-opting spirituality for its own illicit gain.

Which, needless to say is something that works hand in hand with the machinations of the global oligarchs, whose modus operandi has been practically identical.

We are the useless eaters, and what we dont know cant hurt them.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

If the Catholic church, along with its leadership are such the bastions of society they claim to be, they wouldnt have the slightest hesitation whatsoever in scourging the house of the "few bad apples". I dont doubt that in the field of Paedophilia, this is indeed a few bad apples. You see - the majority of humanity IMHO are decent people, so why wouldnt the Catholic church be composed of its fair share of good caring folks, who greatly outnumber the charlottans ?

The problem is of course that it isnt a bastion of society, nor since its inception has it ever been. How is that even remotely possible, when its entire existence - its very foundation - is based upon false pretenses ? The truth, AFAIC is that it has spent its entire existence co-opting spirituality for its own illicit gain.

You're exactly right, even though I'm still a member, and have sympathy with the Church on a local scale. One odd thing I've observed over the years is that the only priests who really get chased out of the Church - the only ones who really are treated as monsters, defrocked, defamed, and rendered excommunicate - are priests who have met adult women, and who want to enter into an honest union with them under God (so to speak). The Church goes daft if a priest somehow manages to fall in love with somebody and find a wife - and it's not just the hierarchy that goes mental, but the laity as well. Often the whole parish. I've known priests who literally had to go on the run because a sexual affair with an adult woman was discovered, or admitted to.

There are old women who still won't speak those guy's names now. I know it sounds like something from a novel, but it's true. They won't discuss the runaway priests (or the suicides). They never existed now. It's kind of hilarious how many runaways there have been in recent times, though. It doesn't matter how conservative or set in your ways you might be - if just under 10% of your parish priests keep running away to get married, it's something that will have to be faced.

There is no forgiveness for these men, though, yet - because they shagged a woman.

Meanwhile the raving alkies, the incorrigible bullies, the sadists, the schizoids, the contemptuous eunuchs who hate their flock, and the paedophiles who prey on it, have been given all the sympathy and support that a vast ancient structure of wealth and power can provide.

That's the crux of the problem. If you're normal, and human, you have no place in the Church. Or politics, for that matter.