Aliens, Culture Control & the End of Dream's End

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Fair game makes sense but could be as proxy for USG.

There's little difference between
CIA/USG info-Special Forces and
$cientology info-Special Forces.

Big overlap.

That's why Germany (German intelligence) keeps a lid on
$cientology in their country.

But Father Frank Morales was in Theresa's loop which brings in NYC9/11 Truth.
Which means CIA/USG had a BIG stake in monkey wrenching the whole thing.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

[hava1]

Very good self defense guidelines. As for whether there was "hardcore" info here on the board, there was. And DE was investigating so many events, one really cannot know which of them mattered, and i wonder if he knows.

Another qualification is the matter of israel in general. It might entail a "gasligthing" campaign, in exception to your rule that "analytical objective work" does not usually entail focused gaslighting. But that certainly wasnt the case with DE, he was careful to please those types. But still there might be another similar issue that DOES make an exception., maybe Kosovo, who knows, he dug into so many issues.

As far as my case goes with DE, he made some breakthroughs (along with other posters here), as to HOW sex slaves who act as honey pots are in fact working, from their perspective. I think he was the first, that I ever read who realized that the person involved actually thinks they are acting on their own desires/emotions when they approach a target. But he was so angry, as if the person involved, the "dupe" "should have known better" or is in fact lying just a little bit, to exonerate self. But i think he eventually realized that. Also, that would be a classic male bias against female emotional make up.
ANother issue, was his focus on MK victims inflitrated in the leftie NGO community, and the dutroux case. All of these are enough to warrant him target. The LEftie orgs, again, he wanted to find "bad people" and that would be the inflitrators, but here again, the dupe genuinely adopts the agenda, in most cases, and usually gets stuck with this makeup for life. And so, this is not the enemy. Then he came up with a theory that although the victims are mindless and sincere, they should be "pre empted" whatever it takes....emmm

His main problem, as I saw it (and i know almost nothing about the TD millieu, Jonney Gosh etc., etc.), was his games with pop psychology-psychiatry, and that's where he also hit CoS, and the deadly abyss/crossfire between the two cults. He actually believes that therapy and psychiatrists are "science"...maybe because they are opposed by "scientology". He lost the humanistic, existentialist, "human rights" balance.

Also soe of his socialist babble, given that , for instance in ISrael SHimon Peres is honorary member of the International Socialist Movement in Europe' who happens also to be the "Dr. Khan" of the region, so.
. And some other blind spots. but most of all, he was hateful, ego maniac, obtuse person. still is probably.

I stayed with a few hard won wisdoms from him. Like the one reminding you that your enemy will usually be disguised as the opposite. Good to remember on this board especially. After all, they are not stupid.

on edit, but i forgot, its boycott time...ooops.

Twof points:

(1) I read Changing Images of Man. And first of all, if the hypothesis is that publicizing its existence, or writing an astute and compelling analysis of it might constitute a threat to power great enough to psy-op the credibility out of him or her -- btw, is that the proposition? I've kind of gotten lost -- while anything's possible, I'd put the odds of it being the case in the low-to-non-existent range. For one thing, it's kind of self-evident that the astute and compelling analysis wasn't discredited.

For another, at least as far as I'm aware, there's very little (if any) precedent among any of the governmental and/or non-governmental entities who play that shit for running that particular kind of game on a person who (hypothetically) represents that particular kind of threat -- ie, on someone whose work is primarily analytical (as opposed to investigative) and broadly informative (as opposed to specifically revelatory of named and dated outrageous and/or criminal conduct).

Plus, although I should qualify this premise as based in large part on personal and anecdotal evidence, it's at least not contradicted by pertinent literature and history on the subject, so fwiw:

Effective professional gaslighting pretty much has to include one or both of two features that aren't in the picture here:

First of all, it almost always includes a physically invasive component. That can be anywhere on the spectrum of mild-to-extreme from dead-cat-on-doorstep, to the sudden-onset chronic-getting-of-flat-tires. to being conspicuously followed for a short distance by someone who's not doing anything more definitively menacing than acting and/or looking so bizarre that describing them in a police report would sound like a paranoid delusion to most peope, to crackly noises on your phone line that wouldn't ordinarily be scary if you weren't on the look-out for scariness. In fact, ideally it should be something that ambiguous in origin, whether it's a bullet in the mailbox, or a beat-down, or one or two prank calls.

Second of all, whoever might or might not be fucking with you almost always wants you to be in absolutely no doubt at all about exactly what the source of the trouble you might or might not be having is, in an ambiguously unprovable kind of a way.

Because the tactical objective of gaslighting isn't primarily to discredit the subject by making him or her look and/or actually go crazy, although that has several major secondary benefits, both as a lesson to others and as an insurance policy if the primary objective -- which is purely to put a stop to whatever threatening activity brought on the pys-op -- either fails totally or only succeeds temporarily. I mean, discrediting is good but obviously having nothing out there in need of discrediting is priceless.

So it has to create at least the perception of prospective physical risk and it has to be clear about precisely what behavior needs to be modified and why. And neither of those things appears to apply either to DE or to anyone else who was or is here -- or at least not that I know of, and I could easily be mistaken about that. Please correct me if I am.

(2)....I've said this before. But, hey, I'll say it again!

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one common-to-near-universal aspect of gaslighting (and/or other, comparable psy-op fear-inducing techniques) that matters for the purposes of self-defense.** And that's that they almost always create an open question that's exceptionally arousing to contemplate. As a matter of fact, there's often, although not always, a part of the puzzle that has literal or symbolical associations with some form of culturally and socially repressed sexual arousal -- ie, sexualized children, or a hot chick it would be necrophiliac to think about fucking, or the money shot of some big phallic buildings having an explosive orgasm. Or whatever. And yes, I agree that last one's debatable, but it's not that important, and anyone who feels implicated by it can consider it retracted.

It's imperative, imo, to be on the look-out for this and to take swift, decisive action if you detect it. That being the counter-intuitive but 100 percent fool-proof defensive action of never spending one moment's thought or energy contemplating any part of it, unless you have an interest or objective that absolutely depends on it. In which case, you should contemplate it only for whatever predetermined amount of time you've decided in advance to allot to pursuing one clearly defined goal at a time on terms that you've clearly and conscientiously established for yourself. Then you should get some fresh air and exercise or go see a movie. Also, it can't hurt to Tell someone you trust what you intend to do in advance, and be honest with at least yourself and possibly that person if you don't observe the boundaries you set for yourself.

Do not, under any circumstances, dwell on the question on whatever free-range terms may occur to you as you go, or ones that you've accepted as they were presented or suggested to you. If you're the target of the ambiguous and remote harassment, remind yourself that it doesn't matter at all whether it's all in your mind or actually happening. Because either way, it can't damage or destroy your life by consuming it if you don't pay any attention to it.

And....I'm not saying that what's imperative imo and effective in my experience is therefore mandatory for all other people in every conceivable circumstance, despite the forceful phrasing that makes it sound like that's exactly what I'm saying.

That's really just me addressing myself, because I know my own weaknesses. However, on less subjective grounds, I do also think that you can't go wrong overestimating how insdiously seductive or how time-consuming having your personal curiosity aroused can be: It's like a drug, people lose their lives to it without even noticing. Owing to which, I'm offering the above as a perspective worth considering as you go about your own independently thinking way more because it's the only perspective I have that works than because it's the only one there is.

Those are my two subjective cents.

**Except, of course, taking sensible precautions vis-a-vis your physical safety. Which includes being prepared to take photographs or video of anything that happens to you in public, I am adding, just because that's not emphasized enough, I have no idea why.

[nathan28]

As for whether there was "hardcore" info here on the board, there was.

His site is down but if it's on the board will you link to it?

And DE was investigating so many events, one really cannot know which of them mattered, and i wonder if he knows.

I think that's part of a broader problem. People want to take on the Octopus when really it'd be wiser (is it wise? maybe if you have a legal defense fund and a .270) to look at specifics as specifics. Wombaticus has pointed out that the best way to get an answer is to define the question before hand.

ANother issue, was his focus on MK victims inflitrated in the leftie NGO community, and the dutroux case. All of these are enough to warrant him target. The LEftie orgs, again, he wanted to find "bad people" and that would be the inflitrators, but here again, the dupe genuinely adopts the agenda, in most cases, and usually gets stuck with this makeup for life. And so, this is not the enemy. Then he came up with a theory that although the victims are mindless and sincere, they should be "pre empted" whatever it takes....emmm

Again, can you point to some of this stuff, to the extent it hasn't been passworded or 404ed?

[lea123]

For what it's worth, a little bit of connect-the-dots. I apologize for the length.

The CoS angle with TD and JB all comes down to their involvement with Beck. His denials of anything but a "passing acquaintance" with the couple, an assertion shown repeatedly to be completely false, coupled with tin-ear pronouncements like "That's [TDs claim that Beck wanted to leave CoS] ridiculous. Totally false…Had we been closer and discussed anything as personal as religion, I would have only had positive things to say about Scientology.", has always bothered me. He's protesting way too much--as if he wants someone out there to believe that he's really, really, really devoted to the CoS, despite years of denial and ambiguity about the subject in other interviews.

I suspect that TD was telling the God's truth about Beck's desire to get out of CoS and that he saw his connection to TD's Alice Underground (not to mention TD and JB) as a way out. So what happened?

For quite awhile--at least through the late '90s--Beck appeared to distance himself from CoS, in spite of being second-generation. Then there seems to be a transition period where he apparently gets more involved, donating money, getting written up in CoS publications, etc. This period coincides with his friendship with TD and JB. During this time, he breaks up with his non-CoS girlfriend Leigh Limon and eventually ends up with Marissa Ribisi, also a second-generation CoSer.

Right around the time that Beck gives the interview to the Italian reporter (Aug 03) where he speaks enthusiastically about his involvement with Alice Underground- "It will be full of energy and full of characters: some kind of Alice in Wonderland set in the seventies. It still doesn't have a title. The director is a friend of mine, and it will be her directorial debut. But I trust her. We will begin shooting in the fall."--Marissa gets pregnant with their first child (which is born in May or June 2004). [Much of this information is nicely summarized here: http://www.lermanet.com/beck/]

I suspect that Marissa, being the good CoS-er she and her family (not to mention both of Beck's parents) apparently are, labeled Beck, TD and JB as suppressive persons and pretty much held access to the child contingent on Beck's total renunciation of his relationship with them. (This is of course not unprecedented for CoS--just take a look at the family of Tom Cruise). Beck's only recourse seems to be total immersion in CoS.

Beck's subsequent behavior seems to support this. He "comes out"--after a long time of denial--as a Scientologist in 2005. He contributes money to CoS "charities" and performs at the Celebrity Center. He lies through his teeth about his friendship with TD and JB.

However: I don't believe that Beck himself sicced CoS on TD and JB. I think that Beck is actually very ambivalent about CoS-- "Modern Guilt" seems to be a (subliminal) confession, not to mention an apology to TD and JB. My guess would be that Marissa and her family (and perhaps Beck's parents as well) were instrumental in the fomenting the harrassment of TD and JB.

[lea123]

Oh, and one other piece of information.

The other group that TD fingered for her harrassment (in "The Trouble with Anna Gaskell" post) was Jim Cownie and his right-wing cronies. I don't really have an opinion yet about that.

However, I've come across a contemporaneous blog post (by a blogger named Paddy Johnson) that addresses "The Trouble with Anna Gaskell" directly:
http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/05/14/filmmaker-theresa-duncan-doesnt-like-photographer-anna-gaskell/

Filmmaker Theresa Duncan Doesn’t Like Photographer Anna Gaskell


Jeremy Blake, Winchester (still), from Winchester trilogy, 2002; DVD with sound; 18-minute continuous loop; copyright of the artist and Feigen Contemporary, New York

Following a recent post about 9/11 conspiracy theories Theresa Duncan of The Wit of the Staircase madly pens a vicious, and questionably credible story about her recent harassment by Jim Cownie the legal guardian of art starlette Anna Gaskell. Good luck parsing through Duncan’s prose - after all, why tell a story in five paragraphs when you can do it in 12 - but I encourage you to try since stories like this are usually pulled from their sites in short order.

The gist of the post, for those who can’t slog through it, basically goes like this: Theresa Duncan claims harassment by Anna Gaskell’s legal guardian and radical right wing conservative Jim Cownie as a result of Duncan’s husband Jeremy Blake’s Winchester Series, 2002. Suggesting the three channel video about the The Winchester Rifle heiress, Sarah Winchester, known for having built a 160-room Victorian mansion in San Jose to house the spirits of thousands who had died by the Winchester rifle, upset Cownies conservative leanings, the blogger claims a number of high placed government neo conservatives connected to Jim Cownie now follow and hassle her. Duncan goes on to describe several such accounts beginning with the sighting of Anna Gaskell’s brother who oddly paced outside their front lawn in 2006. All of this for some reason leads her to make a bizarre connection between the sexual focus in the harassment of Blake and the Edgar Hoover campaign against Black Panther organizer and actress Jean Seberg.

Typical of most barely lucid writings, a number of questions are raised in this post that never get fully answered. For example, Duncan provides no clear reason for why Cownie might be stalking herself and Blake, but for the fact that he does not agree with Blake’s politics. Why he might chose to follow the couple several years after the fact is never addressed. What’s more the fact that Blake had a soured relationship with Gaskell doesn’t appear until the end of this story, and while it’s obviously relevant, it’s unclear how that relationship informs the actions of all parties involved.

Except of course in the various shots that Duncan and Blake take at Gaskell in the article. Who knows how much of this story is fabricated, but I suspect she’s not making up quotes for her husband, who expresses some fairly significant distaste for his old girlfriend, “[Anna Gaskell] was so dumb, so arrogant and so mysteriously smug. She really thought she had some sort of advantage in every situation. I could never, ever figure out where that came from, because it sure wasn’t coming from anything she did….” She also links to an old Charlie Finch article on artnet in 1998 which reports on Jeffrey Hogrefe’s story in the New York Observer on the making of Gaskell’s career, and the ethically questionable help of art critics Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith.

As far as I’m concerned Gaskell’s photography warrants attention, though Duncan may well be exposing a rather seedy underside to her star status, as she also points out that Cownie gave $50,000 to the Des Moines Art Museum, as a means of lobbying to have Gaskell’s work permanently installed there. The piece closes by issuing some unsolicited advice to Anna Gaskell, the likes of stop hanging around with Cownie, and get him to answer a few questions about your mother and father. Who knows what these questions are — Duncan doesn’t go into this — but I’m sure if you ask her she’ll have a long response that somehow connects gossip with radical political movements.

Clearly, Duncan wasn't getting a lot of support from her peers in NYC.

[chiggerbit]

As far as I’m concerned Gaskell’s photography warrants attention

That's about as weak as a compliment can get.

[nathan28]

As far as I’m concerned Gaskell’s photography warrants attention

That's about as weak as a compliment can get.

...or not. some of it, what you'll run into on teh interwebs, has a kind of desexualized-sexualized Sword-of-Damocles metaphor IMO, the kind of boring-ass Twin Peaks inspired surrealist stock-in-trade, but I'm not an art critic or a photography professor, so i don't know what's hot on the art scene, I'm just some dude on the internet who took a print-making class ten years ago. Who wishes he knew more about how silly the art scene was, because a life of sleeping until 1030 every morning then posing some models and mannequins in a park to shoot pictures sounds not half bad right now. FWIW it looks like Ms. Gaskell's star shone more in the latter years of the previous decade than the current one.

there's the "Alice" theme but it strikes me as a subset to the "degrees-of-naked white girls" theme, probably couched in some language about "examining the effects of the male gaze" ("i went to college!"), and as you might be aware that can co-exist without any of the twisted MONARCH erotica. If there's a connection, it exists, I think, more in the minds of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, exploited by the Pseudogaslighting ARG-masters, and of course on the astral plane.

The more I look at this the more soulless it gets. The SRI VALS part cinches up some of my thinking, but otherwise, this is a tortuous route.

[Sarah Bellum]

... I don't know of any that meet the criteria for the playing of DE....

I agree, c2w. It's too subtle, too dextrous to be C0$.

I don't necessarily think DE was the specific target. I know of at least one other online activist who Shawnna attempted to recruit into the private research group. He just didn't end up getting involved it in. They were fishing for activists and they caught DE.

Who is "they?" Not sure. I don't rule out Hugh's theory that it's the USG, looking to distract, discredit, disinfoify.

Disinfoize? Disinfoinate? *scratches head*

[OP ED]

disinform.

[compared2what?]

As far as I’m concerned Gaskell’s photography warrants attention

That's about as weak as a compliment can get.

Whether it's intended in a positive or a negative sense, it goes about as deep as any critical assessment of those pictures can go while still being about the pictures, imo. They're not even very remarkable when viewed in their true context, which is the vast body of A-list gallery art that doesn't have much value worth commenting on apart from a market value that's based on the the mainstream art world's apparently infinite enthusiasm for anything and everything that reminds them of how much pleasure and profit they've gotten out of failing to appreciate that there's any distinction between Henry Darger's work and a copy of Barely Legal over the last fourteen or fifteen years.

To go completely off-topic with full awareness that's what I'm doing, for once. But fwiw, they really are such technically unexceptional and close-to-mindless photographs any art critic would be hard-put to come up with more than one or two coherent sentences related to them that didn't call for either extensive padding or a bank-shot that left them looking at some loosely related but much more interesting subject.

And there really has been a Darger-influenced boom in opaquely pedophiliac erotica in the fine arts that achieved critical mass in....roughly the mid '90s, give or take a few years.. Which is a really long time for a trend to last in that environment. I guess it's a theme that just never grows old, so to speak.

[FreeLancer]

there's the "Alice" theme but it strikes me as a subset to the "degrees-of-naked white girls" theme, probably couched in some language about "examining the effects of the male gaze" ("i went to college!"), and as you might be aware that can co-exist without any of the twisted MONARCH erotica. If there's a connection, it exists, I think, more in the minds of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, exploited by the Pseudogaslighting ARG-masters, and of course on the astral plane.

While I dig what you're saying (I agree that a lot of the contemporary "art" photography is bullshit), I definitely beg to differ when it comes to Gaskell. I find something genuinely unsettling in many of her photos, something uncanny. For instance I think she's much more successful at this than the much hyped Gregory Crwedson (her ex-boyfriend?), whose pics I just find contrived and boring, mostly.

Like I find this one pretty eerie:
http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/i ... sa02lg.jpg
or this
http://ljplus.ru/img2/f/y/fyama/Anna-Ga ... f-life.jpg
(sorry for just a link, I'm tech incompetent)

If nothing else I think she's good at atmosphere.

[compared2what?]

And a grateful shout-out to lea123 for being both more concise and more courteous in apologizing for length wrt to evidence-based CoS posting than I am, of which I stand in awe. After which I'll try sitting in aspiration. Though I wouldn't exactly recommend breath-holding, assuming that the past has any predictive applicability to the present or future on that particular point.

I also offer belated apologies for my much more truly egregious verbosity to the world at large.

[FreeLancer]

And of course there's this... how perfect:

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_r ... rt_order=1

[OP ED]

The Judith Rothschild Foundation Contemporary Drawings Collection Gift. © 2009 Anna Gaskell

now that, is hilarious.