Systematized abuse and incredulity

[blanc]

Has there ever been a topic specifically discussing disbelief in abusive acts which follow a system?
I've used the term systematized abuse in the thread title to avoid the baggage surrounding ra/mc as terms.
The discussion of scepticism of claims of abuse by famous persons in another thread raises the question of why such claims may be dismissed out of hand. What is it about our perceptions of these individuals which can make people think that they could not be involved in organised crimes against children? Is it more difficult to believe that someone in power might be so bereft of morals than that one's neighbour, doctor, or work colleague might?

[compared2what?]

That's an excellent question, and very well-framed, because it actually is chronic problem for more than one kind of systematized abuse.

I don't know the answer to it, though. It's always been my experience that people are almost equally incredulous wrt to impeccably formally documented forms of systematized abuse -- of, say, kids by schools in the WWASPS network and its ilk -- as they are wrt to RA. And although that's absolutely an "almost" with a very significant difference, in that people who have survived having their parents hire goons to kidnap them and then keep them locked up in grim little gulags where they were tortured for years have a much better average chance of being believed (if not understood) when they choose to speak of their experience, as well as much lower chance of continued persecution after they get out than RA survivors do....

I don't know. It was the first thing that occurred to me. And I guess I thought the comparison might be instructive. Because it's not a significant difference in that you simply cannot get people to believe or care that either of those two systems of abuse is real, ongoing, and routine. Or convince them to recognize that atrocities are being committed and must be stopped. At least, I simply cannot get people to believe or care about those thing, and I do try. With those systematized atrocities and with others. But just to stick to those two: Though one more than the other, it's always been my experience that the biggest concession I'm ever really able to get is something along the lines of: "Oh, well. What you say does sound persuasive. Maybe so. But surely that's very, very infrequent, despite what you say, which I will now cease to think about so entirely, the next time you bring it up, we'll have to start from scratch."

And that's just baffling to me, every single time, for every single systematized ongoing atrocity. I've been informed that people can and even like to learn about horrendous problems, but only if the lesson plan includes a solution. And once that was pointed out to me, I could see that there was a great deal of truth in it. But since I'm not like that myself, and pretty much cannot stop thinking about unaddressed atrocities once I know of them, I don't really understand it. Or know how to work around it from an advocacy perspective. I have good enough communications skills in a general sense to impart the information I'm trying to impart to the people I want to inform with decent success on most other issues. Including some inherently very distressing issues. Yet when I try to address the very same people who know me to be a thorough, reliable, and fair imparter of fact wrt anything having to do with extreme systematic abuse, mind control, torture, and [you know the usual features], they either think I'm crazy or wildly exaggerating. And I don't know, I don't know, I don't know why that is.

It's not like I've never given the question any serious thought, either. I am just totally at a loss as to what the answer is.

When it comes to RA in particular, of course, there's the extra level of mess created by systematic disinfo. But it's not like I'm telling anyone anything they don't already know by saying that. So I guess I'm just noting it for the record.

Shorter version: I don't know, blanc. I wish I did.

ON EDIT: Had accidentally linked to a site with some issues, have now replaced it with another.

[blanc]

Picking up on the idea that people like to learn about problems only if the lesson plan includes a solution, that could be a reason for an extra level of rejection where the alleged perpetrators are powerful? I wrestle with this because evidently, most people can accommodate the idea of someone powerful committing a traffic offence, a marital misdemeanor, or even large scale fraud. For these, there is a ready solution, not one which would necessarily be implemented, but potentially there. At one point, with a couple of other 'supporters' of ra survivors, I had a meeting with a newly formed police unit which was supposed to be addressing ra crimes. In the course of this meeting, we touched on one case ( a 'hot' case - the survivor had fairly recently escaped and though the perp group routinely changed venues etc when this happened there was a lot of good information). The perps in this group were well connected, not at Dr K level, but in medicine, judiciary, higher education, politics. The expression on the faces of the detectives was something between panic and despair - not enough resources to even begin to mount the necessary operation, and the ground strewn with landmines. In their place, I would have had the same reaction. Yet, in discussion groups, with no responsibility to actually make anything happen, people can accommodate other problems with no solution - 9/11, who killed Kennedy, many other similar issues spring to mind.

[American Dream]

As to the abuse of children is "special" schools and programs, an important issue, but a very different one than the topic at hand here. Well-deserving of its own thread, imho.

As to disbelief of ra/mc accounts, here's a few things that I think contribute:

1) Abuse conspiracies are mostly invisible in the corporate media.

2) Mind control since the revelation of MKULTRA has been portrayed as "not working", a failed quest.

3) RA is portrayed as a phantom of the Christian Right, which many repudiate.

4) Everything in this area is, in the mainstream consensus, rather "X-Files".

5) Feminist extremists are presented as orchestrating false accounts, mostly through hysteria.

6) Rational, thoughtful people are supposed to be on "the other side".

7) There has been a flood of sketchy, disinformational, crazy and/or ideologically-driven accounts.

8 ) Corroborated, evidence-based accounts are particularly absent from the major corporate media.

9) FMSF-style rhetoric regarding kids, i.e.: "Who could believe the testimony of a child?



There are many, many more like this. Maybe others will add to the list.

I'm glad you started a thread on this topic, blanc. Let's all help keep it on track.


.

[sw]

I've wondered about this too.

Many of the people in law enforcement agencies I guessed could not begin to believe that this level of corruption might be true. They can imagine it to be true if it is another country's leaders or elite.

In the church side of things in the same type of task forces, I knew that they knew it was true. It all came down to getting less money from the masses if all of them realized it was true. Kathleen McChesney, who was in charge of the Washington DC Office of Youth and Child Protection did a lot for me but told me in reality, no one would challenge these poor decision but the pope.

In the govt agencies, I think all they see is their funding being cut if they pursued this if they did believe it to be true.

Did you know there is an FBI task force that is supposed to focus only on this topic? They must have guidelines to only go after the common man or woman.

[sw]

Or, they are well aware of Gary Cardori's life.

And/ or, they can't go after certain elite because those elite have dirt on them that others lack ability to dig up.

Or, the people on these special task forces were hand picked to make sure only common people get focused on.

You'd probably have to round up a group of people as portrayed in the movie "the Untouchables". Integrity, no dark backgrounds, interest in justice, no criminal ties, so new to LE that they have not been corrupted etc. Willing to die for justice.

[stefano]

Is it more difficult to believe that someone in power might be so bereft of morals than that one's neighbour, doctor, or work colleague might?

Yes, absolutely it is. Also more difficult to believe that the Bushes are corrupt that it is to believe that the Borgias were, or the Saudis are. This emotional attachment to the belief that "our" ruling class is essentially benign is a very important subject, because as we all know (in slightly different but often overlapping areas of interest), it very often resists evidence. That loyalty to (born in fear of?) the rulers is an aspect of any society, it's going to last as long as the phenomenon of the nation-state. I'd have thought it's less of a problem in France, where people culturally have a very skeptical disposition and it isn't seen as a good thing to love the government. I think it's a bigger problem in the US, where people have deliberately been under-educated for a long time and the red-white-and-blue propaganda has reached a level that looks completely ridiculous to an outsider, without most people there apparently noticing or daring to point it out.

[compared2what?]

As to the abuse of children is "special" schools and programs, an important issue, but a very different one than the topic at hand here. Well-deserving of its own thread, imho.

Perhaps I misunderstood the topic. So I guess I shoud inquire: Is it "systematized abuse and incredulity"? Or is it "systematized ritual abuse and incredulity"?

To me, cracking the topic of incredulity wrt systematized abuse of any kind is the same as cracking the topic of incredulity wrt systematized abuse of every kind. Honestly, in much the same way that an injustice to anyone anywhere is an injustice to everyone everywhere.

However, it's not my thread. And I do want to respect the parameters as blanc conceived them. I just need a clarification.

[sw]

Before an agency is going to fund a case (as in major case funding) they need the go ahead from the U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney will not accept the case, no major case funding, so no case begins.

If Congress does not give funding to a particular program, no funding ie, no travel, no gasoline, no agents can work on that type of case. Congress gives the funding to specific areas. Even your office supplies are designated as support to an area.

I don't know anything about local task forces on the state or local level.

[sw]

I just got back from having two crowns and two filings done. As I sat there, I thought more about Blanc's question. I'll try to quit posting as not to steal a thread but it is a topic that has just baffled me.

Looking back with my dealings approaching law enforcement, I wonder if I would have done better if I had held back. Maybe just said something about my family. Maybe the small chunks are easier to digest than the whole story.

I went to many LE agencies and never accomplished anything except to maybe raise awareness. It wasn't particularly in the LE area that I ended up raising the awareness either. It was by complete accident on my part, really.

When I started therapy, I decided to join a local Dallas support group of just general people looking for support in their lives. Of the maybe 10 of us, most needed support for things like crummy marriages, had job problems, eating addictions or maybe alcohol problems of their kids. Over the years as I approached LE agencies of every type, I would write something out to submit but first I would run it by my support friends. As the years passed and I learned more about my past, my story would expand and they'd read the new parts. Maybe they believed me because they knew me or maybe they believed me because it all came on pretty slowly. They would offer feedback on ways to address whichever audience I was trying to reach.

So, after all these failed attempts, the real people who had their awareness raised were these men and women from all walks of life, from all social economic levels and professions. That is where I made progress and I never even meant for that to be a by product of my efforts.

Blanc, your efforts even if it is not obvious to you, all make a difference. Maybe not today, but it does make a difference. You make a difference. Single drops make ripples. Good Luck to you in your efforts!

[Maddy]

sw - if its any (depressing) consolation, they (law enforcement, society, most friends, even family) don't swallow the small chunks any easier than the large ones. I know from personal experience. And I never even had huge chunks like you and others here for anyone to try and swallow. I quit trying.

[blanc]

Compared2what I thought about abuse which fell into the category of following an organised system, and avoided using ritual abuse as a term or mind control as a term because both of those terms create a sort of quicksand of definition based controversy ( is it ra because the abuse is of itself a ritual or does it have to be piggy backed on satanism for instance). Currently I hypothesise that any boundries between security service led 'experimentation', organised criminal 'training and exploitation', and self interested exploitation cloaked in any concocted belief system, as well as several other possible scenarios such as organised familial abuse for the benefit of (usually) a malevolent patriarchy are hopelessly fudged. Systemetised abuse would also include torture by state actors of captured adults, but I tended to think of it as abuse directed over a long period including or beginning in childhood, with a view to formatting the malleable developing brain into patterns of response which are controlled by the perpetrator.

[barracuda]

I'd like to make clear my thoughts on this topic. Firstly, there is virtually no limit to the acts of degradation to which I would in any sense automatically assume (for example) Henry Kissinger to be incapable of. He is, after all, even considered within some level of the mainstream to be among the most notorious war criminals of the last fifty years. For him to engage in acts of ritual abuse is well within the scope of my conceptualization of him. But as others on this board have pointed out time and again in the context of Brice Taylor's abuse report, the referencing of Kissinger (or any extremely high profile politician or celebrity) as your personal tormentor may have a variety of alternative interpretations, many of which are at deliberate odds with the goals of recovering survivors.

[Project Willow]

Understood, 'Cuda, so lets deal with the subjects one at a time to see if we can't try to separate info from dis, and then of course you still have to decide whom to believe and why or why not.

First I'll put this reminder, not all ra vics were also mc vics, not all mc vics were ra vics. Ra does not equal mc but there is considerable and sometimes complex overlap. Mc is systematic, tax-funded creation of controllable DID personality systems done in laboratory type settings.

From what I've heard, the common thread with the subject you named (I'm sorry, I cannot, will not, force myself to type out his entire name) is the mc of ra/mc. What SW posted was new news to me as I had not heard of him being at ritual before.

I do not like to divulge info like this on the board, it does make me extremely uncomfortable, but since it's also been published elsewhere, and since I've heard it from other sources who will never go public, I trust it, and I hope it's not too risky. Survivor accounts place him in an advisory/overseer role to mc projects at least since the late 60's. He enthusiastically takes advantage of that role, gets his perks as SW described it. Accordingly, accounts I am aware of are usually single instances involving long distance trafficking.

If you think about the technology of trauma based mind control, and you can go as far as to accept it as tax-funded and operational (at least 1955 -), meaning some number of children every year are chosen and placed into the program and made into slaves serving various functions throughout most of their lives, then who else, other than people in some way connected to the very top levels of our government would have access to these children? Looking at it from that point of view, of course we're going to be naming some big-wigs.

[sw]

What I found odd in my encounters with law enforcement was that generally, when one calls an agency for assistance with a crime, the agents will and even me since I answer the phone a lot, will give you someone else to contact in to whatever agency covers that area. People don't know which agency covers which area. We refer to local law enforcement, other agencies, state agencies etc.

No one ever just says, sorry, not my area. Even when I made the initial call to the CIA -OIG attorney, before he got my name and who I was, he said, well that is odd. The OSC usually refers cases to us in our area. They don't just tell the whistle blower to call us.

To get all of these agencies (I'd guess 25 of them total over the last four years) to say it just isn't my area (or not respond at all) was on its own very strange to me.

I could tell some knew about what I was talking about and wanted to get away from me ASAP, others knew nothing, and others thought I was a freak.

Their silence said more than any words could.