guruilla » Mon Feb 29, 2016 5:10 pm wrote:jakell wrote:It seems to me that Saville is the one people find more comfortable, it's easier to think of elites (the other) doing this sort of thing, but not of ordinary folks** as in the case of Rotherham (and related cases).
I made a comment to someone yesterday that seems to be relevant here:I can’t help but envision a wide spectrum ranging from tightly controlled, laboratory experiments (the archetypal MKULTRA set & setting) to reservation schools in Canada, Catholic schools with systemic abuse, or childcare homes in the UK (and daycare centers in the US), where the abuse occurring seems far more random and not at all “experimental” (or results-driven) yet seems to emerge from the same principles and methods and to all combine toward more or less the same end. This is also to do, I think, with the overlap between an organized program (aka worldwide conspiracy) and a consistent psychological reaction to trauma that creates more or less the exact same behaviors, rituals, and abuses, see Lloyd de Mause:After reading over a hundred descriptions of what cults – both contemporary and historical – do to children, the first conclusion that I came to was that they all do pretty much the same things. They weren’t following a worldwide conspiracy; most of them were just neighborhood sadists torturing kids for sexual pleasure, people who never read a book on Satanism in their lives. Yet they all spontaneously follow a ritual whose elements and even details are the same: they take little children and tie them up; put them In cages and tunnels; beat and torture them; turn them upside down and hold them in water; cut, stab and rape them; force them to eat their feces and drink their urine and blood; and disembowel, dismember and kill them while ejaculating. They seemed to me to be acting out a very specific drama. What could such a bizarre collection of acts mean?
Cult abuse, like all sadistic acts, individual or group, is a sexual perversion whose purpose is achieving orgasm by means of a defense against severe fears of disintegration and engulfment. According to Socarides, sadistic release is achieved by inflicting upon a scapegoat childhood traumas – particularly preverbal experiences with a frightening, cruel or neglectful mother – inflicting rather than passively unduring pain and destruction.(19) Sadists live their daily lives full of terrible anxieties about being independent and active. Any success in their lives Is terribly fearful, producing regression to infancy and a desire to merge with mommy. But merging means losing one’s self, being annihilated. To avoid this, it is necessary to inflict on someone else all the traumas one has had plus all the fantasies of revenge against the persecuting parents. Only by reenacting cultic rituals can these deeply regressed individuals avoid castration and engulfment fears and reassure themselves of their potency and separateness.
https://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/arti ... hohistory/tapitsbo wrote:I also suppose there may have been cases where Abrahamic religions may have contributed or intervened against child abuse in certain contexts, which really complicates an attempt to understand these issues with a simple formula
From Prisoner of Infinity part 2, also relevant?The very act of believing in the possibility of transcendence defines the child in contrast to and opposition with the father. This inevitably creates in the (male) child a negative identity, a self defined in opposition to others. The child needs either to outdo its father or become the opposite of him (as in my case, and I suspect Strieber’s, Kurtzweil’s, Castaneda’s, et al) by believing in non-material perspectives, spirituality, occultism, UFOs, sorcery, or impossible (but not unthinkable) technological solutions. This necessary belief, or crucial fiction, creates a psychic line of defense against the possibility of becoming the father, i.e., falling prey to the same depersonalizing, soul-crushing forces of “reality”—be it the reality of God or of Government (or both)—which made the father powerless to rescue the child. These are the forces that “stole” the father from the child (and the father from the mother) to begin with. They are also the forces which the father “sold” the child into, as an offering, as Abraham offered Isaac to Jehovah, or Jacob’s sons sold Joseph into slavery, to the “machine,” to Mammon.
I'm hoping that we are reaching a stage now where these events can be reflected upon a little more coolly, and therefore some decent research can be done. There never seemed to be that much of problem with the Saville business, but the Rotherham cases seem to produce a regular wall of silence (or dismissive mumbling), even after they got mainstream coverage.
I find it hard to believe that there was no crossover with Saville's legacy (there are bound to be folks continuing his 'thing', just far more clandestinely), the Rotherham business, with the trafficking between Northern towns will have made plenty of waves and won't have gone unnoticed, surely the cultural boundaries are not so strong as to override such close common interests.
You're far more of a heavy hitter than me with this sort of stuff, and I welcome your input. I only really intersected with it when examining the BNP's earlier claims about it (mid-late 00's) and discovering to some dismay that they had scored more hits than misses in this area.