False Memory Syndrome

The Rule of Law? I

By M.K. Styllinski

“We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.”

Andrew Łobaczewski, “Political Ponerology


In the family courts of the US and Europe, fathers and mothers are routinely set against each other with children crushed in the ensuing fight. As always, there appear to be valid cases on both sides of the male-female divide, though judging from the carnage left after the numerous battle, you would never know it.

There legions of cases where families have been torn apart due to corruption, ineptitude and ignorance of psycho-social dynamics. For example, we have mothers who have discovered that their spouse has been molesting their child and have taken the appropriate action through the courts to grant them sole legal and physical custody, yet the child somehow happens to end up with the abuser. Similarly, we have individuals within the feminist movement and its breeding ground for covert narcissism and parental alienation syndrome victimising fathers and turning them against their children. The courts have turned justice into a tragi-farce with the alleged abusers  – male or female –  either getting unsupervised visitation rights and more frequently, full custody. In some countries fathers are also being denied access to their children based on out-of-date and unfair bureaucratic laws regardless of whether they have committed a crime. In effect, the laws are biased towards the mother in some courts and biased towards the father in others, according to the specifics of national law, cultural influences and widespread corruption. Indeed, family courts seem to be presenting the worst kinds of injustices in cases which are both complex and multifaceted.

In the US, by far the most reliable source of litigation is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, in Denver. A recent study surveyed 9000 custody disputes in 12 family courts across the country. Only two percent involved child-sex-abuse charges. Although this is certainly small it is known that the psychological footprint is very large indeed from those that do. Domestic physical abuse is highly likely to involve a percentage of sexual sadism which is often mistaken for a purely violent and aggressive display of anger. While physical abuse is still being reported in a greater number of cases, the sexual abuse taboo naturally restricts the number of cases that see the light of day. Even before they get to the courts they must be taken seriously by doctors or paediatricians, notwithstanding the likelihood of such charges sticking. Increasingly, many health professionals fear child abuse cases due to the complex nature of the claims and the potential labyrinth of litigation.

In the UK, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Professor Sir David Hall, told the Royal Society of Medicine that “recent high-profile cases in which doctors had been censured had undermined confidence in the regulatory authorities.” He believed that signs of abuse might go unreported until the indications were ‘all too obvious.’ Careers are apparently coming first. [1] Allegations of sexual abuse, paedophilia and child violence are more commonly made by mothers and can be voiced without challenge or a burden of proof. During the interim, access is denied and courts appear to accept accusations regardless of the possibility that this could be the product of hate and acrimony from an embattled relationship. If the father is innocent and when the claim is finally dropped, there is no penalty for making such a vindictive claim. By then the damage is done, which may partially account for the rise in father suicides relating to unfair agency payments and the ensuing custody battles. Unsurprisingly, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father. [2] As one divorce consultant mentions: “It’s a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts.” [3]

vintage-man-woman-couple-conflict-black-and-white-photography

Back in the UK, each year, some 85,000 families with children younger than 16 undergo divorce. The standard aftermath includes disputes over how much the “non-resident parent” should see his children, which is generally the father. Though the cases are compelling, a range of societal factors could be involved, as the broader statistical picture suggests. America is not Britain (not quite yet anyway). In 1998, a Children First Government paper, indicated that 40 percent of separated mothers admit to thwarting contact, leaving fathers losing all contact with their children within two years of separation or divorce.[4] In 2015, nothing much has changed. According to one English solicitor I spoke to: “Some 80,000 parents issue proceedings a year, many of them fathers seeking reasonable contact with their children. A common outcome is permanent severance.”  With family Court welfare services providing under-trained personnel to evaluate and report on the welfare of children “Normal family men are routinely assessed as unfit to have significant contact with their children; normal children are routinely sentenced to years of ‘relationship-building programme[s]’ to condition them to withstand visits from ordinary Dads.” [5]

The patterns of bias vary from country to country with a trail of injustice due to poor judges, out-dated court procedures and corrupt agencies. Many fathers rightly cry foul and highlight the shared parenting concept that is constantly under attack by the blight of many in the feminist movement who consider fathers secondary to the mothering principle and inherently untrustworthy. At the same time, the shared parenting concept as well as parental alienation is of little value if one of those parents – male or female – is a closet molester or covert narcissist. The systems are not only ill-equipped to deal with the subtleties and nuances of lengthy custody battles and child abuse cases but bureaucratic delays mean that judges are often forced to speed up the process rather than let the case proceed in a measured way. In the words of one Colorado attorney: “If we ever sat down to design the worst possible system that protects the smallest number of children, it would look a lot like the family courts look today.” [6] However, there is much more to this than just a back-log of paper work. Fathers, mothers and children’s misery is being used as a means to make a lot of money. Breaking up families was never more lucractive.

In Kristen Lombardi’s award-winning article “Custodians of Abuse” she researched the background behind family court custody battles, interviewing almost 25 experts in custody litigation. Lombardi offered some enlightening reasons as to why these courts are failing children and parents, contributing to a further layer of what amounts to long-term, state-sponsored emotional abuse. [7] She found that family courts: “… do not rely on criminal investigators to examine child-abuse claims, but family advocates called guardians Ad Litem (GALs), whose charge is to investigate allegations of abuse, abandonment, and neglect and to represent the best interests of the children in disputed custody cases. More often than not, they are licensed psychologists or social workers. Sometimes, they are attorneys.” [8]

Ad items they have their own individual areas of expertise which do not however, qualify them to act as evaluators of the highly sensitive problem of child abuse. With the spread of Kinseyian sexology and psychoanalysis as the platform for most evaluations, the interviews, assessments and judgments are routinely carried out without the necessary qualifications. What is more, cultural bias is frequently operating where the gender of the alleged victim – parent and/or child – is crucial to the final judgement.

public domain-girl-railroadtracks-walking-1Family courts are now a law unto themselves. Judges can operate as mini-dictators where their opinions, beliefs, and gender bias (towards male or female) take precedent over the evidence. This has shown to be true in case after case, including “judges…hold [ing] hearings in which important rulings are made with only one party present (called ex parte hearings); such hearings violate basic constitutional rights of due process.” [9]  The courts do not have juries nor a mandated legal representation, so that the law for the rich imposes another law for the poor, reinforced by the inner circle of Establishment opinion that is intentionally set up to serve itself.

The American Judges Association confirmed findings from its 1996 report:  “Domestic Violence and the Courtroom,” which showed that “wife batterers and child molesters convince family-court officials that their ex-wives are ‘unfit’ or ‘undeserving’ of sole custody in roughly 70 percent of contested custody battles.” [10] What is seldom mentioned is the fact that when there was a fight over the children, “…fathers won primary or joint custody more than 70 percent of the time — whether or not there was a history of spousal or child abuse…” [11]

However, the data is sparse indeed on the presence of pathological narcissism and Munchausen By Proxy which is very much the province of the female. We can see how variable the data really is from country to country – even state to state. Statistics change for domestic violence as opposed to straight divorce cases.

Another study by respected social scientist Murray A. Straus, appears to show that “Family conflict studies, without exception, show about equal rates of assault by men and women.” (Keep in mind that there is considerable discrepancy as to what constitutes “violence.”) Straus mentions that though women score highly on physical violence: “Crime studies, without exception, show much higher rates of assault by men, often 90 percent by men.”[12] This may account for the quote that “every 15 seconds a woman is battered by their [intimate] partner in the United States.”[13] The latter conclusion needs to be kept in mind that the crime of assault against women is overwhelmingly the province of the male.

Conversely, the extent of husband battery is thought to be hugely underestimated. Men do not usually report their violent wives to police; similarly, children do not report their violent mothers to police. Meantime, women are far more likely to report men to relevant authorities. Straus believes that: “…neither side can give up their position because it would be tantamount to giving up deeply held moral commitments and professional roles. I conclude that society needs both perspectives. Neither side should give up their perspective. Rather they should recognize the circumstances to which each applies.”[14]

Easy to say but how to apply?

predatorclouds2

The Predator’s System

A “medicalisation” of the law can also be personified in the form of “interactional assessment” which uses intense observation by experts who are trained to look for signs of abuse. While working well in a classroom for a variety of different criteria, it is still an entirely unproven method of evaluation. Despite this, it is still widely used in the courts.

Advocates of this method believe: “validation of the abuse does not depend on the verbal disclosure of the child, confession of the perpetrator, or the conviction of the other parent that abuse has occurred. It depends on gathering and sifting through information from multiple sources.” [15] This represents a massive oversimplification and assumption regarding assessments of this kind. There is no evidence either way that behaviour cues can be used to determine whether abuse happened. Subtle signs of anxiety can be attributed to a host of different reasons, not least being present at the interview itself and most certainly being present in a courtroom.

The existence of such psychiatric and legalistic onslaughts has caused countless children to become easy targets for further manipulations leading to another layer of emotional trauma. Why would the child molester – male or female – worry about going to court when s/he has so much confusion circulating? In his domain, he is the master actor and manipulator, leading a double life and relying on the trauma-induced child he abused to complete the proceedings. After all, if he can be in the same courtroom as the victim – all the better. He can intimidate the child further and induce yet more trauma, causing the testimony to be less than believable. This is the psychological legacy of the last 50 years – which children are simply fabricating, that they should indeed be “seen but not heard.”

One specific book singing the praises of interactional assessment illustrates techniques including anatomical dolls and drawings to use as useful tools with no data or evidence to suggest that these techniques are even helpful. There are several drawings which the authors interpret as “signs,” of abuse such as missing ears, the absence of feet, and phallic shapes. References are sparse. Case histories can be interpreted a multitude of ways serving as a perfect example of how easily evaluations, with no proven record of efficacy, can lead to catastrophe despite the best of intentions. Meanwhile, the abuser – along with his lawyer – is laughing all the way to the bank. With naive theories and Faustian bargains made by lawyers who routinely pimp their principles for whoever pays the most, the attorney client privilege takes up the slack and banishes any other compelling evidence that may be offered.

At the same time, psychotherapy as a once useful tool in the hands of responsible professionals is under attack from the US government. A colleague of psychiatrist Corey Hammond and co-author of Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, Professor Alan Scheflin of Santa Clara University Law School is an expert on clinical and experimental research on hypnosis, memory and trauma treatment and their applications to the law system. In a recent interview he talked about the changing climate of psychotherapy and trauma assessment, where therapists are clearly being used in ways that undermine children’s’ best interests.  Third party liability suits brought against therapists and the invasion of privacy and the autonomy of the therapist-patient relationship are some of the changes imposed by business and government.

Scheflin explains:

A scheme in which physicians exercise principal control over decisions about the use of facilities, choice of treatment and determining what information should be disseminated to patients, has given way to a system in which competition and cost containment have become dividing forces, driving forces. Insurers and other large business entities exert great impact over treatment choices and hospitalization as well as selection of providers. […]

Unfortunately other professions and the uninformed have now stepped in to determine the standard of care. The standard of care being a legal standard is informed by good medical practice, but by being a legal standard, it can be manipulated by lawyers and propagandists and other people, and that is what has happened.

Therefore it is necessary for the mental health profession to wrest back control of the standard of care from the avaricious lawyers that are in the process of changing it. [16]

Psychotherapy is either co-opted or the therapists themselves are seduced by payments and propaganda. The law was never about who is innocent or guilty but the profits that can be extracted from the bloody battles that follow. On many occasions the “discourse of disbelief” and from psychologists with poorly applied evaluation techniques or False Memory Syndrome advocates of psychiatry are enough to allow children to go home with their abuser. The following case study illustrates this point.

Picture a wealthy businessman, accused by his wife of committing sexual abuse against his four year old daughter. These become the grounds for a lengthy custody battle. Psychological evaluations of the man’s relationship towards his daughter show: “…a very happy, spontaneous and positive relationship.” A history of sexual abuse is known by the psychologist but dismissed as irrelevant in court due to the man’s obvious disposition; his charm, amiability and more importantly – his status.

predatorbuys

Power buys influence – truth is secondary | © infrakshun

While the court case is proceeding, the polygrapher with an excellent record enters the picture and is requested by the attorney defending the man, convinced as he is that his client is innocent. This highly professional and experienced polygrapher describes the details of the accuser’s confessions during the test:

She grabs his penis while he washes her in the shower and he has explained to her what a man does with it. When questioned further about how often this happens, he said about three or four times a week. When asked to give a high figure regarding the number of times that Julie has touched his penis he said about twenty times… […] He also acknowledges erections and masturbations in the showers while Julie is in the shower with him….Her father stated that he sleeps nude and stated that Julie likes to cuddle. He stated he likes to run her foot up and down his penis until he gets an erection and sometimes ‘things happen.’ […] He stated that she ‘loves’ to orgasm. ‘I’ll get her a vibrator. She’ll hold the handle against her peepee and giggle until she climaxes.’ [17]

Remember, this is a four year old girl.

The report by the polygrapher continues to relay the man’s inability to contain his excitement to the extent that he finally admits to severe child abuse. In fact, he can’t stop relating his exploits, confirming the pattern of the psychopath’s need for self-aggrandizement through communicating his “successes.” He knows his money and influence will protect him and that his self-assurance regarding the mechanisms of the law will allow him to get away with such audacious confessions such as the following: “She has licked and sucked his penis no more than five times, has given him two full ‘blow jobs.’ He has ‘69ed’ her. He has licked her vagina and has performed oral sex on her not more than ten times.” [18]

The polygrapher faxes the report to the attorney acting for the father but to no avail. The attorney-client privilege is enacted and the report suppressed.  The “audacity” is actually an utter self-confidence in the duplicity of the system. The custody battle ends in the man’s favour and an admitted child molester is recommended for full custody.

How could such a travesty take place?

The man was a wealthy businessman who used the exact same skills of manipulation and ruthlessness which allowed him to gain a substantial footing in the commercial world. A personification of our economic and corporate model. This afforded him the best attorney in town, supplanting the mother’s meagre attempts to find a similar worthy opponent to defend her child’s interests. Coupled with biased psychological evaluations and the ignorance of the nature of the psychopath, the child never had a chance. The spellbinding techniques of the man were so effective that the whole courtroom was captured in his thrall. This man could never have abused the child! The attorney reminded the judge and jury that there was a man of standing and impeccable character before them, and psychiatrists provided the pseudo-psychology for him to get away with it.

Now reverse the scenario with a feminine vampire/narcissist using the cultural advantage and female pity-me ploy which also works wonders with a jury. Both occur and the courts facilitate these manipulations. The possibilities for pathological narcissists, child rapists and paedophiles from each gender to pull the wool over the eyes of those with conscience has never been easier in a legal system that is loaded towards the desires of the psychopath.

The late psychiatrist Ralph Underwager was likely the leading US scholar on child sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990’s. He wrote extensively about the over protection issue and anti-sexuality climate in the States. The essence of Underwager’s argument was however undermined by his actions. He represented an expensive resource for often high-level predators seeking to buy their way out of abuse, though courts have rejected his testimony on more than one occasion. This has been on the basis of the doctor’s unsubstantiated and clinically unproven sources and methods (such as learned memory) that serve to underline his belief that “90 percent of accusations against child molesters are wrong.”

While Underwager’s writings do have much validity in addressing the anti-sexuality present in Christian America, his defence of paedophiles undoubtedly acted against children. As discussed, there are plenty of psychiatrists and psychologists present who continue to blur the lines. Jim Peters, a senior attorney for the National Centre for the Prosecution of Child Abuse who investigated Underwager in the late 1980s believes that such psychiatrists present themselves as scientific observers, when more often than they are advocates for abuse inside and outside the courtroom. [19]

In 2005, an appellate level court in New York was the first to recognize the debate within the mental health community over whether “it is ethically proper” to give opinions on the best interests of the child when there is no empirical base to support them.” So said Matrimonial attorney and Albany Law School professor, Timothy Tippins. The article continued:

 “Psychologists and psychiatrists are unable to scientifically measure and predict the effects of different factors on the future well-being of a child. There is no way to ethically study, for example, the effect it would have on a child to place him in a home with schizophrenic parents. Therefore, after a mental health expert offers opinions regarding the effects of, for instance, depression or spousal abuse, the judge should be the one to opine as to the child’s best interest.” [20]

Psychopaths can attune to everyone’s ideal hero. The pervasive adulation which is afforded to the charismatic spellbinder in our societies allows the predator to slip between our shadows unnoticed. Children disappear in plain sight in exactly this way. There, behind closed doors they are abused and scarred for life with the blessing of family courts.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Doctors ‘fear child abuse cases’ BBC News, 5 January 2006.
[2] National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) – males actually commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group, yet the statistics suggest that losing a job and divorce are the most frequent cause.
[3] Quoted from ‘Distraught Father’s Courthouse Suicide Highlights America’s Male Suicide Epidemic.’ By Glenn Sacks, San Diego Union-Tribune, 11 January, 2002.
[4] Children First Dept. Of Social Security, UK Government, 1998.
[5] Public Eye.Website of Political Research Associates, June 1989.
[6] ‘Deadbeat parents, system fail children’ Lansing State Journal, Michigan, April 13, 2003.
[7] ‘Custodians of Abuse’ by Kristen Lombardi’s The Boston Phoenix, Jan.9-16, 2003. This is required reading for anyone wishing to gain an insight into the nature of abuse, in this case from women’s perspective in the courts.
[8]  Ibid.
[9]  Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘The Controversy Over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological Theoretical and Sociology of Science Analysis’ by Murray A. Straus. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 1998.
[13] United Nations State of the World Report, 2000.
[14] op. cit. Straus.
[15] Children Speak for Themselves: Using the Kempe Interactional Assessment to Evaluate Allegations of Parent-Child Sexual Abuse by Clare Haynes-Seman and David Baumgarten Published by Brunner/Mazel, Inc., 1994 (pp. 33-34) ISBN: 0876307454.
[16] From the Presentation entitled: Risk Management in Dissociative Disorder and Trauma Therapy by Professor Alan Scheflin given at the International Society for the Study of Dissociation (ISSD) and International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) conferences at a joint session in Montreal on November 9, 1997.
[17] op. cit. Salter (p. 18-19)
[18] Ibid.
[19] ‘Witness for Mr. Bubbles’ Transcribed from “Australia 60 Minutes,” Channel Nine Network (Aired on August 5, 1990 in Australia) produced by Anthony McClellan; Reported by Mike Munro.
[20] ‘Custody Ruling Addresses Reliance on Expert Opinions’ By Mark Fass, New York Law Journal, 2005.

The Sex Establishment VI: False Memory?

“We propose that use of the term “false memory” to describe errors in memory for details directly contributes to removing the social context of abuse from research on memory for trauma. As the term “false memories” has increasingly been used to describe errors in details, the scientific weight of the term has increased. In turn, we see that the term “false memories” is treated as a construct supported by scientific fact, whereas other terms associated with questions about the veracity of abuse memories have been treated as suspect.”

― Jennifer J. Freyd; from Use of the Term “False Memory” for Errors in Memory for Details, Journal: Ethics & Behavior 14(3) pages 201-233, 2004”


imagesIt is curious how the deconstruction of psychoanalysis has led to the resurfacing of child abuse at this particular juncture in human history and precisely at the time of an overt sexualisation of children, in turn, drawn from a foundation of religiously-induced anti-sexuality!

An example of a strange Establishment-led “science” which is stirring the pot of both extremes is False Memory syndrome (FMS) where many genuine child abuse victims were denied justice on the basis that “recovered memories” were deemed unworthy of analysis due to alleged “suggestions” or verbal “cues” from mental health professionals. [1]

That doesn’t mean to say that FMS is wholly without merit. If a therapist is convinced that the patient has been sexually abused by her parents or by a Satanic Ritual Network then this bias can influence the subject – in some cases. Even if the client has no memory of it, it is possible to offer leading questions and subtle persuasion which can lead her away from objective recall to subjective assumptions. Not recalling the trauma means that the client is in denial which then becomes the “proof” which establishes a dangerous loop of confirmation. Memory is highly malleable, of that fact there is no question. The detection of false memories is an essential skill that not all therapists possess, nor is it immune to political interference.

There is danger from both directions. Yet, the more one digs into FMS the more reasons for disquiet can be found.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) founders are Peter Freyd and his wife Pamela, whose daughter had accused Peter of molesting her as a child and provides an interesting set of initial reasons why such a belief may have come into being. Moreover, the late psychologist and paedophile advocate Ralph Underwager was an original member of the FMSF Advisory Board and helped to create the foundation. He and his wife Hollida Wakefield used to publish a publish Issues in Child Abuse Allegations, a journal written by and for child abuse “skeptics.”

Dr. Ralph Underwager’s credentials as a paedophile apologist were well-known. Rather than call for preventative treatment Underwager was intent on campaigning for paedophile’s rights and to insist that the condition was simply another sexual preference that should be sanctioned. Underwager was interviewed in Paidika -The Journal of Paedophilia where he was asked the question: “Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?” Underwager: “Certainly it is responsible”…. Paedophiles need to … make the claim that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God’s will for loved unity among human beings”. [2]

Whilst Underwager dismissed all ritual child abuse as fantasy and the rights of paedophiles as sacrosanct, his outspoken comments caused his resignation from the foundation in 1992. His wife Hollida Wakefield who remained a member despite similar views on paedophilia where she claimed:  “… a longitudinal study of, let’s say, a hundred twelve-year-old boys in relationships with loving paedophiles” would be a good starting point for research. [3]

Some of the other original board members – some of whom are now deceased – include:

Dr. David F. Dinges a Faculty head of the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, is on the Scientific Advisory Board and used to work with the late Austrian-born Dr. Martin Orne. (More on him later).

Dr. Harold Lief was the Freyd family’s personal psychiatrist and was tasked with persuading the Freyd’s daughter Jennifer that no abuse took place. Another close colleague to Orne and a participant in hypnotic programming and behavioral modification experiments at the University of Pennsylvania. Past president of the Sex Information and Education Council and director of the Centre for Sexuality and Religion. Lief is credited with the introduction in the DSM of the “inhibited sexual desire” and a longtime supporter of Alfred C. Kinsey.

Dr. Elizabeth Loftus – A research psychologist who testified on behalf of serial killer Ted Bundy. Loftus also defended various individuals accused of child abuse and was ejected from the American Psychologist Association. Californian Clinical psychologist Catherine Gould an expert in the treatment of ritually abused children who stated at the September 1993 National Conference on Crimes Against Children in Washington, D.C., that the studies by Elizabeth Loftus ignore past research on trauma and its influence on memory. Gould voices her concern about Loftus pointing out that the nature of memory of traumatic events is not discussed in her data and yet:

“… she has failed to protest the misapplication of her findings by groups who are involved in discrediting the accounts survivors are giving of their traumatic history. I believe that Dr. Loftus, like other psychologists, has an ethical responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that her research findings are interpreted and applied accurately, and are not manipulated to serve the political agenda of groups like the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. I question whether she has met this ethical responsibility.” [4]

Michael A. Persinger – a Professor of Cognitive neuroscience and militant atheist. An expert in low frequency electromagnetic waves (ELF) he believes almost any experience can be produced whether by false memory or mind control by beaming specific frequencies at the temporal lobes of the brain. He has worked for the Navy and the National Security Agency and his been associated with military mind control research.

Others worth mentioning who were members of FSMF were Louis Jolyon “Joly” West who had a resume for mind control psychiatry as long as your arm. He worked with Orne, Persinger and others as key personnel in the CIA’s mind control programs. For example, Margaret T. Singer noted for her psychological brainwashing techniques in the military and her association with West and Dr. Martin Orne. “The Amazing” James Randi Luminary of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Randhi was also accused of being a serial paedophile. All of whom have made it their calling to deny the claims of those suffering from child sexual abuse.

In fact, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) board members offered a veritable hornet’s nest of CIA and military-intelligence connections.  And with a history of sexpionage manipulations and mind control operations a proven part of the agency’s past (and present) one has to question why it is that this grouping of connections exist. [5]

Martin Orne, a co-founder of FMSF had a particularly interesting history in this context. Researcher Colin A. Ross MD who obtained Freedom of Information documents regarding the origins and history of FSMF provides the needed background on the co-founder. He established that Orne not only had top secret clearance for and consultation status for Operation MK-ULTRA mind control programs conducted by the CIA but his C.V. is positively brimming over with military-intelligence funding and contracts, citing infamous centres of mind control research institutes the Office of Naval Research and Centre for Human Ecology. On FSM, Ross opines that:

“The FSMF Advisory board was a very diverse group with many personal, political and professional agendas,” yet the presence of  “a sub-group including Drs Orne and [Louis Jolyon] West were primarily interested in discrediting multiple personality and ‘recovered memories’ in order to protect the Manchurian Candidate programs [US mind control programs] During the 1990s when the false memory wars were at their peak, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against therapists inducing ‘false memories.’” [6]

Ross asks us to consider the following:

… a woman tells a psychotherapist that a psychiatrist working for the U.S. Air Force gave her LSD during an experiment conducted at the University of Minnesota, where he worked and she was a research assistant. He then made her sit in a specially constructed room that had leaves glued to its walls, floors and ceiling. In the 1990s a person who remembered this in therapy could have sued her therapist for implanting fantastic, impossible false memories. FMSF expert witnesses would have told the jury that these memories were false and implanted by the therapist who was guilty of malpractice. [7]

It was these exact experiments which were carried out at the University of Minnesota by Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi with funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. [8]

Indeed, FMS experts believe that even the very idea of repressed memories of trauma have no empirical evidence, preferring to place the blame largely on the pseudo-science of various therapists implanting these memories. Despite this claim there are many examples that the mind does indeed repress authentic trauma and in the hands of an experienced psychologist or psychotherapist can be worked through.

According to Psychologist Ken Pope, in 25 studies of amnesia for childhood sexual abuse it was concluded that:

“… all demonstrate amnesia in a sub-population including recent studies with design improvements such as random sampling and prospective designs that address weaknesses in earlier studies. A reasonable conclusion is that amnesia for CSA [childhood sexual abuse] is a robust finding across studies using very different samples and methods of assessment. Studies addressing the accuracy of recovered abuse memories show that recovered abuse memories are no more or no less accurate than continuous memories for abuse.” [9]

The FMS crowd can just as easily be accused of producing an industry of denial where all abuse reports and trails are burdened with what author and sociologist Sara Scott describes as the “discourse of disbelief.” These industries of disbelief and the industry of survivors compete together to produce more suffering and more victims in the law courts.

Professor Ross E. Cheit, head of the Recovered Memory Project, suggest financial gain from recovering memories as the only driving force, stating: “… it is curious to note that critics who are quick to question the financial motives of anyone who might receive compensation for a recovered-memory claim never seem to raise the same concern when considering those who have recovered enormous financial payments in ‘false memory’ cases: the so-called ‘retractors.’ The one-sidedness of this scepticism can best be explained as politics, not science.” [10]

While FMS is not acknowledged by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders it is often included in mental health papers for public advisory guidelines. FMS “experts” can charge fees of over $450 per hour, thus contributing to an atmosphere of exploitation and vested interest far above the needs of truth. [11]

 


Notes

[1] “False memory syndrome” (FMS) is the term for the hypothesis describing a state of mind wherein sufferers have a high number of highly vivid but false memories, often of abusive events during their childhood, though this remains a highly contentious area of conjecture. It is not listed DSM-IV, though this in itself does not constitute a non-validation of this theory, being as the manual is less than objective in its criteria for mental illness.
[2] Paidika Winter Issue, 1993, pp. 3, 12.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘The False Memory Hoax’ By Alex Constantine, January 1996 | educate-yourself.org/mc/falsememoryhoax1996.shtml
[5] Ibid.
[6]Military Mind Control: A Story of Trauma and Recovery [Kindle Edition] Colin A. Ross M.D. Published by Manitou Communications 2008. | ASIN: B005ZJUXA8
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. (introduction)
[9] ‘Science as Careful Questioning: Are Claims of a False Memory Epidemic based on Empirical Evidence?’ By Ken Pope appeared in the American Psychologist, vol. 52, #9, pp. 997-1006.
[10] ‘Response to Critics’ Professor Ross E. Cheit, Project Director Of the Recovered Memory Project Taubman Center for Public Policy & American Institutions at Brown University. Information can be found at recoveredmemory.org.
[11] op. cit. Scott (p.58)

Sex, Lies and Society I

  By M.K. Styllinski

“NAMBLA is an extremely tame organization compared to others. NAMBLA would say, for example,  that they are opposed to forcible sexual contact with children. Other organizations are not.”

Andrew Vachss, author, child advocate


Although abuse has always existed recognition of the crime and its causes and effects have obviously changed. With any complex and taboo subject, statistics will always remain controversial due to their ability to shape our perceptions so effectively, for good or for ill.

The statistics on sex crime and sexual abuse are some of the most hotly contested of all media reports. Child abuse has been placed in the spotlight yet without the requisite caution and objectivity. None of the statistics quoted in the following posts have a unanimous consensus. All are disputed and fought over according to which particular camp the group or individual belongs. Different definitions and purposes will dictate the outcome of even the most objective data. Sexual abuse is, by its very nature, a highly charged issue thus a clear statistical appraisal of this phenomenon will likely be flawed, to some degree. The only way forward is to gain the best possible data and advance step by step.

Another set of questions might be posed. For instance, how can we know to what extent a general heightened awareness has caused the  rise in child abuse? Can we differentiate between a rise in the number of cases and an increase in the actual incidences of abuse? How is it possible to formulate definitions of abuse when controversy over these definitions has not been resolved?

Author and lawyer for victims of abuse Andrew Vachss believes that child abuse hasn’t changed but the reporting of it has. He states:

When people pick up a newspaper today, they are likely to read about some case of child abuse. I don’t think fifty years ago that was true. In fact, I know it was not. So, if you look at child abuse statistics, which didn’t exist, say, in 1955, and then you looked at them today, you’d say, ‘Oh my God, child abuse has increased into this huge epidemic.’ My suggestion is that there’s no proof that child abuse, in and of itself, has increased. There is proof that case-finding techniques have increased, and reporting has increased. [1]

The very nature of quantitative and qualitative statistical analysis and data gathering is open to political manipulations. As we will discover, abuse serves an important purpose in this regard. In such a highly contentious field of enquiry the “butterfly effect” applied to data changes that are erroneous and sourced from ideology, beliefs and supposition can result in big differences in the final studies. When the media is told to get behind whatever propagated statistic is deemed useful to those in power then it is almost assured that this empirical “truth” will become a household “fact.”

For example, which would you trust: studies that collect official government statistics or studies that offer the opportunity for anonymous, independent collection and retrospective data gathering from professionals on the ground? The latter would be my preference. However, if the media has some shocking statistics but cannot or is unwilling to provide a means to evaluate their authenticity then it is very easy to support one’s headline, whatever that may be.

Statistics are uniformly used to substantiate loud proclamations when an argument may be weak. As statistics have the stamp of officialdom and authority, people automatically take numbers as facts. In the world of abuse this can and does lead to severe problems for all, but an easy and useful tool for the Establishment. When well-meaning social activism gets the wind in its sails, they can often be a pawn in the chess game of covert forces at work. A lack of critical thinking ensures the game is played out resulting in a “social comedy” that can nevertheless have dire consequences as author Joe Best describes:

“Activists want to draw attention to a problem … The press asks for statistics … Knowing that big numbers indicate a big problems and knowing that it will be hard to get action unless people can be convinced a big problem exists (and sincerely believing that there is a big problem), the activists produce a big estimate, and the press, having no good way to check the number, simply publicizes it. The general public – most of us suffering from at least a mild case of innumeracy – tends to accept the figure without question.” [2]

Best goes on to mention three basic questions to keep in mind when presented with statistics: Who created the statistic? Why was the statistic created and how? It becomes apparent the identities, history and data gathering of the experts are key components for the support or dismissal of statistics.

Let’s also be aware that most reports will not come to the attention of the authorities (assuming these authorities are not implicated in abuse themselves) and we can thus say that sexual abuse may be more common than we think. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) remains one of the best and by all accounts the most accurate resources available. “Substantiated cases” in the US and “registered children” in the UK are an example of how many cases never reach social services, let alone the courts. Children and young adults cannot and will not report their abuser to authorities due to the nature of the crime that is deeply entrenched in social taboos. This is particularly the case with incest (otherwise known as intra-familial abuse). It is a highly sensitive field of enquiry for obvious reasons. This is changing but there is ample room for improvement.

Statistics are extremely easy to manipulate. For example, violent crime took a large jump in early 2006 which is hardly surprising coming as it does on the back of a number of laws related to “protecting freedoms” though implementing the reverse.  In the true style we have come to expect from American institutions: “The FBI report did not give any explanation why the violent crime numbers and murders went up last year, but Justice Department officials said during a news briefing that the government’s policies were not to blame.” [3] (Of course!)  They further added on the causes for the increases: “We have no idea but it isn’t our policies that are reshaping US society.”

Such absolutism is not a little unnerving when set against the evidence that FBI and Department of Justice can be rather selective with their statistics if they can get away with it. Some of the ways in which data is distorted include:

  • Reducing child sex abuse rates by deleting official data on sex abuse of children under 12;
  • Eliminating sodomy of boys by reclassifying boys in an ageless —male rape category;
  • Lowering child abuse predator recidivism by aggregating child molesters into a generalized category of —violent assault;
  • Decreasing abuse data for unmarried fathers, step fathers and —live-in boyfriends by aggregating these men with biological, married fathers into —parents and other caretakers” for incest offenders;
  • Excising data on prostituted and other child sex abuse crimes from DOJ‘s —”Severity of Crime” scales that measure public views of crime severity – implying that child sexual abuse is benign.
  • Wholesale failure to tabulate data on child sex abuse within the child protective services system.[4]

The FBI and intelligence agencies generally have long history of lying because that is their area of expertise. When a nation becomes ponerised these agencies and their methods of CoIntelpro * are used against the public who is classed as the new internal enemy. This is a matter of historical record rather than conspiratorial conjecture. If it is deemed necessary for the “greater good,” manipulating social reactions in relation, for instance, to organised abuse  it will be mandated from the highest levels. The crimes of the Klu Klux Klan, and the existence of organised crime were all initially denied until such denials became embarrassing when compared with objective reality. Similarly, the existence of satanic cults at the Establishment level is also officially denied representing another complex arena of truth and fabrication – as we shall see.

Statistics and can be useful aids and they can serve to distort. Hopefully, as we continue, the reader will be able to consider the sources in relation to the themes outlined and make their own judgment as to their relevance.

child_abuse

The US State Department’s definitions for sexual abuse include:

1) The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage in any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; or 2) The rape, and in cases of caretaker or inter-familial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children. [5]

As we start to look at the first spoke in the wheel of abuse we will also look at what constitutes paedophilia and child molestation from an American and British perspective and its unfortunate place in those societies. It might be as well to summarize very briefly the changing attitudes towards child sexual abuse and how we arrived at the complex situation of truths and half-truths that characterise present day reactions to the issue. Once we have a better idea as to the issues involved, we will then be on a firmer footing to see how top-level psychopaths (or Pathocrats) use this issue to protect themselves and their power structures.

***

Though child neglect was brought to the attention of child protection agencies in the US during the 1950s, it was not until the 1960s that child abuse began to receive significant attention. Physical abuse was detected by paediatric radiologists who began to document children’s injuries, ultimately leading to increasing exposure and resulting in the diagnosis commonly known as “battered child syndrome.” By the early 70s various child protection laws had been passed in the America, one of the most important being the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 which ignored social and economic factors related to abuse but nevertheless served to place abuse firmly on the map. States were required to adopt a uniform definition of abuse in order to qualify for federal expenditure. “Sexual abuse” became a separate category in itself. As a result of these laws and a greater awareness of abuse generally, the number of cases have dramatically increased right up to the present day. The Federal government’s main impetus for these laws appears to have come from two main streams that were dominant at the time, namely the new feminist impetus and their critique of patriarchal values and psychologists and mental health workers that saw abnormal sexual behaviour as a symptom of broken families, who then sought to implement the appropriate safeguards.

The early 1980s saw the media tackling abuse ostensibly to raise awareness of the issues but in reality it was as much to do with distribution sales then any new social conscience. The inference was that this was a deep problem which had remained hidden for decades or longer. Ideas of an epidemic in child abuse that was not being admitted, let alone tackled as a serious social problem began to appear in many peer review journals as well as the mainstream press. These years also saw the subsequent reaction of a “collective denial” that surfaced in much of the Establishment and traditional institutions.

Alternative views regarding paedophiles and child molesters which were being discussed in Europe, America, and Canada and particularly in the Netherlands as a way to understand and offer rehabilitation, were largely ignored. Sex researchers were seen as fringe and not a little loopy in the very ideas of paedophile advocacy. To even suggest that anything other than the castration of child molesters as a solution to the problem was considered evidence of “political correctness” gone mad, thus the problem remained an open wound that was never be allowed to close.

Much of the allegations of abuse focused on day-care centres and employees. Baby-sitters, social workers and health authority staff were increasingly coming under a private and public scrutiny. Yet many of these reports were sensationalist with allegations that they were politically motivated. Incest was still relatively low down in research priorities and public awareness.

By the mid and late eighties false accusations had begun to appear as well as the idea of “witch hunts” and the theme of ritual abuse. Commensurate with these new perceptions were the evaluations of methods by which these testimonies were extracted. The volume of litigation increased significantly, as did the enthusiasm of those intent on bringing child molesters to book. Though sentences were passed down there seemed to be many miscarriages of justice.

During the 1990s the confidence in children’s testimony was turning sour and the interpretation of children’s allegations of abuse became a battlefield where the victims were sandwiched, once again between two camps. In some cases children were found to by lying or they become very confused. The children were also highly sensitive to leading questions by clever attorneys/lawyers and which should not have negated the initial suspicion, or the evidence of abuse, yet this was often the result. On occasions where the case hinged only on the word of the child in question, it became apparent that sexual abuse claims were open to financial compensation claims and family vendettas of an infinite variety. From one article: “the increased determination by authorities to uncover child sexual abuse has had less than wholesome consequences: a raft of false charges that devastate the lives of those accused.” [6]

By the mid-nineties stories of incest were increasing dramatically. Cases involved fathers and step-fathers singled out for sexual abuse within the family which gradually led to a reaction from a coalition of fathers who claimed to have been wrongly accused. Adult incest survivors became big news after around 1992 with various celebrities recounting their suffering in popular books and day-time chat shows.  Roseanne Barr, LaToya Jackson and Oprah Winfrey were just a few of those who highlighted the abuse within families, giving further credibility to the understanding that abuse had been around for some considerable time. It was in this field of entertainment that the tales began to take on voyeuristic tones with a multitude of “true-life” stories reaching the bookstands, many of which became instant bestsellers.

“Survivor speak,” as it came to be known, dominated magazines and chat shows as the link between ratings and sexual abuse began to be established. Cathartic exposures to all kinds of repressed memories – genuine and false – were encouraged to be spilled out into the open for all to swim in. It was a lucrative time for the media and entertainment industries. Although there were certainly positive elements to this new spirit of openness the downside meant that it reached saturation point, where everyone but the family cat came forward with a story of abuse, the definition of which appeared to be expanding. Hidden memories needed to be acknowledged and healed no doubt bolstering the cultish fervour of the self-help movement in the US.

However, by 1994 a reaction to the false accusations eclipsed these reports to form “False Memory Syndrome” where victims’ recollections of abuse were said to be unconsciously fabricated. [7] This led to vehement denials from adult abusers that claimed the syndrome was nothing more than manipulation to prevent justice for victims and to protect the guilty. While the battle lines were being drawn between those convinced that much of the abuse was either made up or based on political bias and/or custodial grudges, there was a sharp rise in the number of cases being reported from within the Church with priests coming under particular focus for perpetrating serious abuses against young boys.

One year stood out as being a time where all forms of sexual abuse and sexual crime seemed to explode into the global consciousness: 1996. Whether this was a natural “critical mass” or part of the media’s insatiable appetite for titillation and sensationalism where “sex” in the title  (however dark) would ensure an easy sell, is certainly part of the picture. It is also true that the number of reported cases was rising exponentially. The Marc Dutroux case could be said to personify the rising interest in and occult ritual abuse during this period, not least the Establishment’s links to such crimes.

***

The paedophile and child molester are the new bogey-men of our age. It is the definitive vessel to which we easily funnel all of collective shadows; the lone predator waiting to pounce on our children, to let loose unspeakable acts of evil against the unsullied innocence of the child; where all of our fears, repressions and wounds are exorcized to the point that innocent men have died and the laws that are meant to protect children have become null and void.

The power of the word “paedophile” can shut off our reasoning all too easily due to our familiarity with cases of child rapists whom have taken lives of children in despicable ways. It is these cases that are burned into our consciousness and resurrected time after time so that all forms of deviancy become fused together into a mass of moral panic and reflexive fear. If you happen to be entirely innocent of the charge of paedophilia which has often proven to be the case, you can expect your life to be ruined under the vigilantism of the press and public alike who delight in a catharsis of moral indignation where facts seldom feature. The problem as to why such tragedies happen, are irrelevant. Tragically, organised networks of abuse continue to exist and are ironically buffered by the cyclic ebb and flow of public outrage. True, perhaps there is part of us all that would like to see the psychopathic child killer strung up and given a taste of his own medicine, but what do we actually know about the paedophile and his creation? What does society have to answer for the existence of this deviancy from the “norm” and other forms of aberrant sexuality?

How can we learn to distinguish between collective ills and the habitual denial of deeper shadows that we must all bear the responsibility for; and when and how these shadows are being used to create specific political tools of control?

 


* “COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO’s of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. In the early 1950s, the Communist Party was illegal in the United States. The Senate and House of Representatives each set up investigating committees to prosecute communists and publicly expose them. (The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy). When a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1956 and 1957 challenged these committees and questioned the constitutionality of Smith Act prosecutions and Subversive Activities Control Board hearings, the FBI’s response was COINTELPRO, a program designed to “neutralize” those who could no longer be prosecuted. Over the years, similar programs were created to neutralize civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups, many of which were said to be “communist front organizations.” As J. Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI put it.”  http://www.cointelpro.org. [What the public may not be aware of is these operations did not simply cease, but were utilised for all social domains. Of particular note is the New Age or Human Potential Movement, the foundations of which may have been purely a creation of intelligence agencies.]

 


Notes

[1] ‘A Conversation With Andrew Vachss’ Conducted by Gary Lovisi, Originally published in Mean Streets, February 1991.
[2] pp. 19-21; Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists. By Joel Best, University of California Press, 2001 | ISBN: 0520219783.[3]  ‘FBI reports biggest violent crime jump in 15 years’ By James Vicini, Reuters, June 12, 2006.
[4] ‘How the FBI and DOJ Minimize Child Sexual Abuse Reporting’ by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. The Institute for Media Education  July 2002  An Examination of Relevant Child Abuse Data Suggesting That Reported Decreased Violence to Adults May be a Function of Unreported Increased Violence to Children The Institute for Media Education Interim Report.
[5] Each State provides its own definitions of child abuse based on minimum standards set by Federal law. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) serves as a basic template for future refinements according to each State.
[6] ‘Sexual Abuse or Abuse of Justice?’ By Richard Lacayo, Time Magazine, May 11, 1987,
[7] ‘Lies of the Mind’ – Repressed-memory therapy is harming patients, devastating families and intensifying a backlash against mental-health practitioners By Leon Jaroff, Time Magazine, November 29 1993.