Systematized abuse and incredulity

[American Dream]

The ISSD, or today ISSTD (International Society for the Study of Trauma & Dissociation) in the United States, is a really mixed bag.

It seems like there's a few members who want to take ritual abuse and mind control seriously and hence therapeutic modalities that include deprogramming, but these people are in the minority. Far more common are the people who never really got it, and/or those who did but succumbed to pressure.

[lightningBugout]

The ISSD, or today ISSTD (International Society for the Study of Trauma & Dissociation) in the United States, is a really mixed bag.

It seems like there's a few members who want to take ritual abuse and mind control seriously and hence therapeutic modalities that include deprogramming, but these people are in the minority. Far more common are the people who never really got it, and/or those who did but succumbed to pressure.

FWIW I do not share your opinion at all. There is a great deal that goes on behind the scenes of that organization, only the slightest hint am I privy to but it completely contradicts your negative assertion about any sort of disinterest in RA/MC.

[American Dream]

Maybe you know more things here than I do lBo but my understanding is that the number of people who will openly take up the issue of government mind control is in the definite minority. In fact I heard that at the convention in Philadelphia (a year ago?) they didn't have much support for a presentation on these kinds of topics.

More socially acceptable aspects of trauma and dissociation- yes this is their stock in trade. Actually lBo, I hope that you know something I don't know and it turns out that I am way too pessimistic about this in general. Or maybe the California contingent is better?

[lightningBugout]

Maybe you know more things here than I do lBo but my understanding is that the number of people who will openly take up the issue of government mind control is in the definite minority. In fact I heard that at the convention in Philadelphia (a year ago?) they didn't have much support for a presentation on these kinds of topics.

More socially acceptable aspects of trauma and dissociation- yes this is their stock in trade. Actually lBo, I hope that you know something I don't know and it turns out that I am way too pessimistic about this in general. Or maybe the California contingent is better?

What I know was reported to me by a single member and suggests there are many national members out there who are desperate for more info on *how* to help MC survivors.

Are you familiar with the history of what happened to the organization? They were essentially firebombed by the FMSF, oftentimes with the help of the media. They lost their heaviest-hitters, who in turn lost their careers and livelihoods. Some of those stories are truly tragic.

If that organization were to talk a great deal publicly about RA/MC, can you imagine what might happen, in this media climate? Can you not picture the Fox news stories? Essentially the whole story would get built around that one doc in the Northwest who (I don't approve of this), told his client about "the NWO." Tanked. Demolished. Set back 15-20 years.

I intuit that their primary goal is to tread slowly and to help people in need first and foremost.

Not to mention the FMSF put such therapists in a dangerous position by accusing them of implanting memories. Thus I imagine it is unlikely to be therapists so much as well-healed survivors who bring the reality of MC into public consciousness. Isn't that already beginning to happen? Or am I just optimistic?

[American Dream]

I think you're right lBo that it is the well-healed survivors who are leading the way. Of course there are good therapists out there but they as a group have definitely been constrained by the pressures on them also.

It's already happening yes, but there's a really long way to go, too...

[Free]

Well-healed survivors can't exist without good therapists. To heal from severe, systematic abuse that begins in infancy or childhood is difficult, if not impossible without competent assistance and support.

[lightningBugout]

Well-healed survivors can't exist without good therapists. To heal from severe, systematic abuse that begins in infancy or childhood is difficult, if not impossible without competent assistance and support.

But of course. I'm only suggesting that therapists will be demonized again if they become the primary voices in an any media or advocacy campaign.

[Free]

LightningBugOut wrote:

But of course. I'm only suggesting that therapists will be demonized again if they become the primary voices in an any media or advocacy campaign.

Totally.

I guess it's up to us to lead the way... it's difficult though without a certain level of recovery. I believe the individual healing needs to come first.

[Maddy]

If it's any consolation, or hope to anyone, more "just regular" therapists are becoming aware/accepting of RA (in all of its aspects). I know because I've recently met a therapist who (actually, amazingly) deals with DID, who is familiar with RA and also is knowledgeable/educated about MKUltra and so forth. So while they may be few and far between, they are out there. She also mentioned about knowing others who also deal with these subjects to me. Just sayin'.

[blanc]

It is probably survivors capable of sustaining their efforts to be heard under the pressures of disbelief who will faciltate change. That said, its up to those who dismiss stories/allegations/accounts to confront their own belief systems and question their own interpretation of what is evidence. And why they are reading RI.

[lightningBugout]

It is probably survivors capable of sustaining their efforts to be heard under the pressures of disbelief who will faciltate change. That said, its up to those who dismiss stories/allegations/accounts to confront their own belief systems and question their own interpretation of what is evidence. And why they are reading RI.

I think the problem is much more complicated. The odd debunker of survivor's narratives stands out like a sore thumb. Much more common are people who I assume have decent intentions but don't always recognize or act on the basic paradox that is at work. This one - a survivor cannot be any clearer or offer any more infomation than may put him/her at personal risk, actual or perceived. I've probably been wrong to refer to such posters as skeptics when, as Lily pointed out, their being on RI signals a fundamental open-ness to the bigger issue. However, whereas with other sorts of issues, where specific victims are not at risk, it makes good inquisitive and rigorous sense to request more clarity and detail, those requests are likely to provoke responses in survivors that lead to anger and/or alienation. I know I wish I could share more information than I have, that would explain how what happened to me is rather unremarkable given my milieu, but doing so could genuinely put me at risk. I assume.

In a nutshell - I see now that well meaning folks want more info to clarify and make sense of something outside their own reality and that I, for one, can't effectively offer it. Leading again and again to conflict.

[American Dream]

What we are engaged with here is a "battle of ideas", a quest to educate and organize the public or something along those lines.

In order for this to move forward, I don't think it's necessary for any individual survivor to tell more of their story than they feel ready to. La lucha es para todos: The struggle is for everyone.

Thus I think constructing a solid, evidence-based presentation of the relevant facts is key, as this is something that any/all can use. Heartfelt personal accounts certainly have their place and humanize the story, however I do feel that just as the more-conscious men have a responsibility to educate (and confront) other men about sexism, all of us have a part to play in this struggle...

[Free]

Being on the internet intensifies some of the difficulties in talking about MC/RA (or systematized abuse). No body language.. it's easy to be misunderstood in print...and more.

But I've found, mostly in face to face contact, that people can be divided into two camps and that the camps sometimes blur into each other. To simplify I'll call them- People in Bad Faith and People in Good Faith - (I, of course, like to hold out the hope for banner changes, i.e. switching of camps, from the bad faith to the good faith camp):

1) People in bad faith- (In some ways I hate to use dark and light as an analogy but for clarity's sake I'm going to do it). The darkest end of the spectrum is made up of those who are consciously aligned supporters of forces of oppression, containment and exploitation of other human beings. People who torture, spew lies and hatred to inflame the masses, organize systems of exploitation or enthusiastically work in them. There's a me-first mentality here.

Intergenerational "Cult" members who are not (or are no longer) unaware and highly dissociated pawns are part of this group. Over the years they've proved their usefulness and loyalty to the higher-ups, the group and the "cause" and have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of wealth and power (through force, manipulation, theft and corruption).

Unfortunately it's very, very unlikely that people from this group will switch camps.

At the gray end of the bad faith spectrum we have people who, often blinded by their privilege, bristle at the stories of survivors for conflicting reasons: a) they are horrified by the atrocities b) these reports point to serious, possibly intractable problems with the "establishment", the system, country, leadership, etc that they have hitched their wagon to.

Since this group's humanity is still intact, with the right circumstances (lousy economy which reduces or eliminates their privilege, revelations of torture camps, rendition flights etc, reports of rampant corruption) and the right education (all kinds of "alternative" information which may include stories/allegations of RA/MC survivors), frequent defections occur.

2) People in Good Faith- On the lightest end of the spectrum are the people that, throughout history, have hitched their wagon to the star of freedom (and love). An unfree life is not worth living, they feel, and they want freedom to extend to all. They've invested their lives spiritual pursuits, self-edification and development and doing things to make the world a better place.

In this group are a lot of people who are searching but confused and are trying to learn and sort things out.

It would seem that R.I. naturally attracts people from this camp and, maybe I'm naive but I think that the vast majority of people who participate here have underlying good intentions.

This is getting too long so I'm going to cut to the chase:

What I'd like to say is this- if your intentions are good, then show it- and ask for a moratorium on attacks, especially in the threads that deal with RA/MC. I'd also like to ask for a bit of special consideration and kindness towards the survivors who post here.

No topic need to be off-limits, I think that a thread and discussion about occultism that includes both RA survivors and occultists (even dabblers on the dark side) could be fascinating. Many survivors grew up in occult belief systems and could have a very interesting viewpoint. I for one would be interested in reading honest posts about why people are attracted to occult groups.

I'm not saying that it's "not okay" to express doubts either. I had the exact same reaction as Barracuda when I first heard multiple allegations of abuse by H. Kiss***ger (and I'd like to talk about this in another post).

In general I don't think it's what is said as much as how it is said. Attacks and aggression stifle the conversation...

[sw]

Free:

2) People in Good Faith- On the lightest end of the spectrum are the people that, throughout history, have hitched their wagon to the star of freedom (and love). An unfree life is not worth living, they feel, and they want freedom to extend to all. They've invested their lives spiritual pursuits, self-edification and development and doing things to make the world a better place.

This made me want to cry....just beautiful.

FWIW: questions are a tricky area. I do think questions can be a good thing and possibly even help the survivor because it showed people are interested and are listening. Even disbelief is okay. but, there is this other kind of questions that are really attacks. In person, it is really easy to see they are attacks by the non verbal.

Some people just suck at questioning or maybe they don't suck but they really are attacking but are trying to hide it as questions so in that case they just suck in general.

When I did the victim impact groups, they allowed no question at all. The victims were victims of a broad area of crimes. The facilitators said that no questions were allowed because they were asking victims to give them insight. Their insight was a gift. No questions because the victims were asked to give as much as they could. I kind of liked this too.

It was really, really hard to go up and tell people what happened. To get attacked by mean jerks like the special panel lead, was just horrible. It was like being raped all over again except now it was a gang rape.

That is kind of graphic but it is none the less how it felt.

So, questions can be good things if the question person is kind hearted and the victim is open for questions.

[LilyPatToo]

blanc said:

LP2, as I think LBO pointed out, accounts of systemetised abuse sound weird mainly because they are nearly always partial accounts. It takes maybe 80,000 words or so to give anything like a reasonable account of events which took place over many years, with many repetitions. Most survivors are trying to communicate a synopsis in a couple of paragraphs. The material is such that it gives rise to many questions - to which there are usually complete answers, but unless the person giving the account is in the same room as the questioner, the dialogue doesn't take place. Online acounts suffer a further difficulties - should the account name names or not? who will be unintentionally hurt if it does? is it safe? without specifics is it credible?

This is something that I've wished I'd brought up in many of the trauma survivor threads here--I'm aghast that anyone would dismiss me on the basis of the miniscule amount of information they have on me. But how do I present the complex evidence that I have (so far) of manipulation that's extended over more than 60 years?!

For a long time now, I've referred people who seemed genuinely interested in the subject to the early archives of the huge Witness thread at Unknown Country, but that only chronicles the early awakening of a bunch of us who happened to have similar screen memories. My understanding of the subject is much deeper now and I've managed to get beneath some of those screen memories to the actual events. So even if someone sacrificed their eyes reading that contentious mass of victim testimony and flaming, they still wouldn't have an accurate current understanding of my own case.

Free mentioned questions--with my memory, sometimes the only way to uncover memories is to have someone ask me questions. So when I stopped hanging out on boards where people would do so, my progress ground to a halt. But I know what you mean about the subtle aggression that some self-styled "debunkers" conceal in questions, Free. That sort of assault is awful to endure. Every painfully stated detail is later picked apart and ridiculed. Needless to say, this sort of bullying is common in denizens of the darker areas of the continuum that you describe above. And it's one of the main reasons why this is the only public board where I still bother to post...as painful as it can get here, it's a walk in the park compared to many other online communities' attitudes toward survivors of systematized abuse.

LilyPat