Systematized abuse and incredulity

[sw]

For fwiw:

1. I was alarmed by OP ED's post in that topic and context because of my own history. I don't follow RI enough to even know much about op ed. About four years ago, I was instructed not to ever query this stuff on govt time. They monitored my queries. I did once and was looking at Michael Aquino. This was brought to "my attention." If I ever did it again, I would be fired. Thus, my response to Op Ed's single Michael Aquino reference. My apologies to op ed.

2. I know it is wrong, but I really liked two of the people who handled me when I was around four through six and did Theta / remote viewing stuff. One of them, a really nice lady, was killed. I missed her. They were really nice to me.

3. I have met some RA friends in recovery. They spoke of scary late night RA ceremonies. The Bohemian Grove event that I was at was not scary to me except that I was raped alot. They had a fire, they all danced around the fire in cloaks that were falling off. They were all totally drunk and laughing. They picked and raped kids at the service stations spread out away from the fire away from the owl. Kissinger was up with the owl doing something to a kid that did not move. He was a little boy of about five. I thought they killed the little boy but my therapist said it was a trick that most likely he was drugged and they faked killed him because he did not move when he stabbed him. Now, he looked scary. He was not drunk. He was serious like in church. The rest were all falling down, vomit drunk.

end of off topic. Hope that ties up lose ends.

Onward. sw

[lightningBugout]

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.

There is a very basic problem here. I, for one, would never be comfortable sharing the logistical details of my life (time and place) on this board due to fear (both real and exaggerated). If I were able to do so, what sounds like an unusual claim would seem much more mundane and, in no way be a candidate for "alternative explanations."

A 9 yo girl in Omaha who fingered a nationally famous politician as participating in child abuse at a hotel room party sounds completely unreliable. Until one recognizes, as in the Bryant book, that she is actually but one degree of separation from that person. The same is true of the McMartin case in which kids fingered Chuck Norris. While I have no clue as to whether or not that was legitimate, a great deal was made in the media about how preposterous that allegation was. Yet ironically, as I later discovered, Chuck ran a karate studio next door to the original school building.

Most survivors cannot share their life details publicly yet, IMO, most were raised in military or political environments where contact with high power people was mundane.

[OP ED]

your apology is accepted sw. i do not post anything with the intent to upset someone. okay maybe sometimes, but its usually pretty obvious because i say so when i do.

i've had my own troubles with the ToS assholes around here. i have an natural distrust of anyone who actually openly worships the prince of darkness, to start with. Although i didn't consider them my enemies until the attacks became very personal and non-rhetorical. if you were familiar with my personal history, you would not doubt my sincerity on this issue.

IMO, when i look at this thing as a whole, M. A. is one of those folks who seems to be at the nexus of actual RA and the MIC's MC-type programs and organized crime. It astonishes me the lengths to which even media outlets go to cover his tracks for him. [hence my close following over the years of the status of his wiki page, for example]

{"marginal notability" my ass}

i am not overly familiar with your own history, sw, although i guess if i had been then perhaps i'd have been less suprised to have been called evil several times. You also labelled your own reaction as being personal and didn't frame your statements as un-qualified accusations, so, for the record, sw, you weren't one of those i expect apologies from.

i thought my intent would be obvious. a rereading of the thread, btw, will firmly establish that at least one poster, the one my link was a direct response to, didn't seem to have any trouble whatsoever seeing what my exact point was.

which is to say that paranoia and fingerpointing in general do not help these things very much. there's more than enough of that going around already without us adding to it.

[lightningBugout]

I want to tread very carefully in order to do my own part to keep this thread healthy on track. But I wouln't feel responsible if I didn't point this out.

Barracuda you've posted numerous times in the past commenting that you are no a "professional" counselor or therapist. Or variations thereof. The comment often bothered me and we have battled about it before. My own feeling was that ended up suggesting that survivors feeling comfortable and safe here sounded more like a special request.

Thus I find it rather uncomfortable when you make suggestions as to what the "needs" of survivors are.

I wonder what others think about such commentary and how it relates to the struggle with incredulity.

[OP ED]

I want to tread very carefully in order to do my own part to keep this thread healthy on track. But I wouln't feel responsible if I didn't point this out.

Barracuda you've posted numerous times in the past commenting that you are no a "professional" counselor or therapist. Or variations thereof. The comment often bothered me and we have battled about it before. My own feeling was that ended up suggesting that survivors feeling comfortable and safe here sounded more like a special request.

Thus I find it rather uncomfortable when you make suggestions as to what the "needs" of survivors are.

I wonder what others think about such commentary and how it relates to the struggle with incredulity.

but the survivors, to speak from the point of view of someone who neither is one nor deals with them in teh real world, DO make what appear to be special requests in order to feel safe and/or comfortable, and these requests are not always of logic that is obvious to those of us who are not among their numbers.

example: LBO have you ever edited a warning into one of your posts that had a purpose other than dealing with survivors' issues?

ever?

i'm not aruging about whether they're reasonable requests or not, that is, IMO, to be decided on a case-by-case basis, i am arguing however, that it IS a "special request" from the POV of nobody else making requests like that. or at least not nearly as often, as i can't remember any except a couple that dealt with violent imagery, but that doesn't happen every day.

i mean, from my POV, i get called names about twice a week for things that no one except a very small number of people ever misunderstand. it certainly makes one feel "special".

[Project Willow]

which is to say that paranoia and fingerpointing in general do not help these things very much

I find it a little confusing as to why I have to explain this, but if it helps dispel some lingering acrimony, then alright.

Paranoia is a natural reaction to living with people who are fundamentally untrustworthy and willing to cause you harm. Yes, it can be misattributed, and in a venue like this, there are fewer signals to drown out the alarm bells.

There's nothing special about you Op Ed. I've been on both ends of mistrustful reactions myself and so has just about any other survivor you'd meet. It simply comes with the territory.

If you want to come at it from a logical point of view, it's isn't logical to expect people living under threat of bodily harm to perceive human interactions from the same neutral base point as people who feel relatively safe and secure in their persons.

[lightningBugout]

example: LBO have you ever edited a warning into one of your posts that had a purpose other than dealing with survivors' issues?

ever?

I genuinely don't follow the question. Can you clarify? I would like to answer it.

I will say I have rarely asked that people censor their content because of any specific potential effect it may have on me.

[barracuda]

I want to tread very carefully in order to do my own part to keep this thread healthy on track. But I wouln't feel responsible if I didn't point this out.

Barracuda you've posted numerous times in the past commenting that you are no a "professional" counselor or therapist. Or variations thereof. The comment often bothered me and we have battled about it before. My own feeling was that ended up suggesting that survivors feeling comfortable and safe here sounded more like a special request.

Thus I find it rather uncomfortable when you make suggestions as to what the "needs" of survivors are.

It seems you're asking a few different things here.

My response to some of your comment here boils down to a question of language, specifically, the vocabulary and jargon acceptable to abuse survivors. For instance, referring to survivor statements with the term "story" or "narrative" obviously has the connotation of fiction about it. This wouldn't be immediately apparent to anyone who wasn't fairly well versed in the specialised nomenclature of speaking about survivorship advocated for and adopted by professional counselors within the range of literature presently understood by survivors and support professionals to present their information in the least biased way. This language also hopefully optimises the manner in which that information is seen within relationships to power in the public and private or personal sphere.

So in the spectrum of capability associated with such lingustic knowledge and facility, there are those who have no knowledge at one end... ...and at the other, survivors and support professionals fully verse in the literature and working to create even more adequate formal systems to deal with this issue. As ever more integrated solutions to these problems of language are drawn from what are most likely theraputic settings, the abilities of counselors and researchers to aid survivors increases, and the ability for survivors to help themselves and help place thier specific issues with the skein of similar issues of abuse and recovery.

So this spectrum of knowledge and capability will include every person you encounter in your dealings with this issue. Obviously some of them will seem incredibly insensitive to you. They may even regard some of yyour statements as outright fancy. Others, more conversant with the language, will appear as voices more in tune with your self-image and needs specific to your own place in recovery from the abuse. If you are very, very fortunate, you may encounter a professional or individual with whom your needs of the moment are totally in synch.

This synching up is what I honestly wish for every person as best-case, whether they consider themselves to be survivors of abuse or not; for who in this world has not suffered abuse, and who is alive that hasn't survived?

Your perception of me somewhere in the spectrum is part of the equation that speaks to your comments. Another part, though, is how interested I am personally in altering my behaviour to facilitate what you see at the moment as your needs! I may have no interest in doing that at all, as, for all you know, I have pain and language needs of my own which are more important to me than yours will ever be. That's the nature of our being separate individuals, kiddo.

I wonder what others think about such commentary and how it relates to the struggle with incredulity.

this part of your question requires I think some fleshing out on your part. What is your own opinion?

[lightningBugout]

With all due respect 'Cuda, surely it is not lost on you that referring to me as "kiddo" is in poor taste. Respectfully - please refrain from that.

[barracuda]

Will do, chief.

See there! I'm altering my language to suit you. Please do not be so bossy.

[barracuda]

I, for one, would never be comfortable sharing the logistical details of my life (time and place) on this board due to fear

I do not like to divulge info like this on the board, it does make me extremely uncomfortable...

Please don't feel you have to write about things you are uncomfortable with in order to clarify for my sake. I mean, really, who the hell am I anyway?

At this point, I am going to accept the information you're giving me, and will keep it in mind. I appreciate your clarifying this aspect for me, Willow.

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.

I have no doubt that what you're saying here just is common sense. My surprise in the other thread was less from hearing the name of a big-wig than it was from hearing the name of that big-wig twice from two different persons on the board in the space of a few posts. Which to me was a bit like entering a conversation at a bar in which one of the group volunteers the information that they beat Michael Jordan at "horse" back in 1987, only to have another participant jump in and say, "hey, you know what - so did I!"

In such a situation, I think most people's natural response would be something along the lines of, "No! You're kidding me!?" Which could be more astonishment than disbelief, depending on the relationships within that group.

So it was a bit disconcerting, but with the example set by some of the posters within the thread with regard to the Brice Taylor reports, I pursued it, but I felt that I did so as politely as I could accomodate the line of inquiry.

[OP ED]

which is to say that paranoia and fingerpointing in general do not help these things very much

I find it a little confusing as to why I have to explain this, but if it helps dispel some lingering acrimony, then alright.

Paranoia is a natural reaction to living with people who are fundamentally untrustworthy and willing to cause you harm. Yes, it can be misattributed, and in a venue like this, there are fewer signals to drown out the alarm bells.

There's nothing special about you Op Ed. I've been on both ends of mistrustful reactions myself and so has just about any other survivor you'd meet. It simply comes with the territory.

If you want to come at it from a logical point of view, it's isn't logical to expect people living under threat of bodily harm to perceive human interactions from the same neutral base point as people who feel relatively safe and secure in their persons.

sigh. i don't why you think you're explaining anything.

all you did was rephrase what i'd just said.

except backwards, that is, from your POV instead of mine.

try this:

it's isn't logical to expect people NOT living under threat of bodily harm to perceive human interactions from the same NON-neutral base point as people who feel relatively UNsafe and INsecure in their persons

i'm not asking you not to feel paranoid. i'm asking you to apply the same standards to your own conduct as you require others to apply to theirs. If it is unfair for someone to publically question your motivations then it is unfair for you to publically question theirs.

it works both ways or not at all. (like a cease fire)

this is especially relevant when it comes to the often commented upon notions of "teams" or "cliques" here, however illusory and/or incidental those things may be in reality.

example: If i am not allowed to question the poster Free's motives, then American Dream isn't allowed to question the poster desertfae's. I mean, I don't see any survivors defending her in that thread...

example: LBO have you ever edited a warning into one of your posts that had a purpose other than dealing with survivors' issues?

ever?

I genuinely don't follow the question. Can you clarify? I would like to answer it.

I will say I have rarely asked that people censor their content because of any specific potential effect it may have on me.

indeed. i'm pretty sure i've never asked anyone to censor anything either, but you and I have both been asked to censor ourselves, at least partially, in order to accomodate others. my question was rhetorical.

[lightningBugout]

Will do, chief.

See there! I'm altering my language to suit you. Please do not be so bossy.

'cuda asking someone to not call you names is not, by any stretch, bossy. it is basic human respect.

[blanc]

Time differences mean that much has been posted on this thread whilst I was asleep!
sw Your experience of officials backing away reminds me of pushing for answers to a complaint of non investigation of serious crime (effectively conspiracy to pervert the course of justice). This went through the merry go round of the police complaints system, ended up with the specific questions not being answered and finally the then head of that system writing to say that the questions would not be answered and that correspondence was closed, then via Member of Parliament to the Minister responsible, who re-iterated a (libellous) lie which was given by investigating police to discredit me . Getting a copy of this letter led to correspondence with the Ministry concerned. A wonderfully candid remark was made by one official 'you won't get anywhere, you're up against the Establishment'.
Thanks for sharing so much btw. I wish you well.
LB wrote with respect to accounts from survivors revealing details which make those statements no longer appear incredible -
"If I were able to do so, what sounds like an unusual claim would seem much more mundane and, in no way be a candidate for "alternative explanations."
It is absolutely the case that taken out of context allegations may seem on the wild side. I can recall being a person who had only heard the edited newspaper versions of ra claims, and being sceptical, as I was supposed to be no doubt. I can recall thinking that abuse of extremely young children must be anatomically impossible, and that if there were people dabbling in satanic mumbo jumbo they must be low intelligence low lifes. But at that time I was also accepting as given official versions of reasons for armed conflict, bona fides of government efforts to avoid supplying arms to for example the Iran/Iraq conflict and much more.
Without naming specific famous people it would still be possible to explain the processes of deceit involved in some other political scandals, and be heard. I'd like to return the thread if possible to considering what it might be which makes us unable to accept that systematic abuse not only goes on but is common enough for there to be numerous survivors with accounts.

[blanc]

OK so I split my post up so as not to get too muddled, so many valid points to develop have been contributed.
AD has listed, near the start of the thread, reasons why allegations may be dismissed - or perhaps rather the flags the dismissal marches under. Someone who really wants to hit out at feminists, or really wants to hit out at the Christian Right, for example, finds a convenient punch ball in a survivor account? Discussion is then skewed away from the veracity of the allegations, and with it issues which might otherwise be addressed.