social control

The Hissy Fit Generation and The Loss of Free Speech I: Postmodernism (2)

“Don’t you give me that postmodern bullshit. There is truth, There is a truth. And what you want, or you feel, or you need, isn’t going to change the truth. Any more than it’s going to topple a skyscraper. There’s truth, and there’s belief.  Don’t call a mule a stallion.”

— Carol Plum-Ucci, young adult novelist, essayist


You don’t need to give a shit about postmodernism and other tangential beliefs for them to work on you.

Before long, people are programmed to act in a certain way, use the correct language and associate with the right people because thinking this way becomes part of the socio-cultural constructs in which we live and have our being; it becomes a default auto-suggestion, a kind of neuro-linguistic leveller for interpersonal relationships acting at the subconscious level. Academia’s psychology of choice is transposed to cultural precepts and channelled swiftly across the global brain of info-tainment technology. People don’t even know they are following the herd because postmodernist thinking is designed to homogenise and consensualise; to enforce conformity through ostensibly benign principles. That’s how it seduces intellectuals who are happier living in their head than their heart, hence the seeding of these ideas in universities.

Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson is passionately against this brand of postmodernism and their adherents, having been on the receiving end of their witch-hunts for refusing to use the correct gender pronouns. (We’ll look at gender issues later on in the series). Peterson’s view on postmodernism is unequivocal and asserts the origins of this philosophy is rooted in cultural Marxism. From a recent interview given to The Epoch Times (see video below) he explains that by the 1960s even French intellectuals had to concede that state communism was a disaster and needed re-branding into a new ideological platform “under a post-modern guise;” identity politics would then swiftly take over the reins of popular socio-political movements for change.

It didn’t take long for this catch-all philosophy to spread through Anglo-American academia channelled through the traditions of workers’ emancipation and minority group rights. The unpopularity of Marxism meant that insights from the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism were brought into play. Peterson states: “They started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name.” Postmodernist thinking s actually the same form of intellectual tyranny exemplified by state communism but re-invented through philosophical circus tricks ostensibly based on a collective social conscience. Unfortunately, it is anything but the latter. The professor explains:

“It was no longer specifically about economics,” he said. “It was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. And that’s actually why they’re so dangerous, because if you’re engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power, all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to them, because what else is there?” he said. “There’s no logic, there’s no investigation, there’s no negotiation, there’s no dialogue, there’s no discussion, there’s no meeting of minds and consensus. There’s power.”

“And so since the 1970s, under the guise of postmodernism, we’ve seen the rapid expansion of identity politics throughout the universities,” he said. “It’s come to dominate all of the humanities-which are dead as far as I can tell-and a huge proportion of the social sciences.”

“We’ve been publicly funding extremely radical, postmodern leftist thinkers who are hellbent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization. And that’s no paranoid delusion. That’s their self-admitted goal,” he said, noting that their philosophy is heavily based in the ideas of French philosopher Jacques Derrida, “who, I think, most trenchantly formulated the anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left.”

“The people who hold this doctrine-this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount-they’ve got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well,” he said. “But even in the United States, where you know a lot of the governmental institutions have swung back to the Republican side, the postmodernist types have infiltrated bureaucratic organizations at the mid-to-upper level.” [1]

Peterson does not think its dangers nor “the degree to which it’s already infiltrated our culture can be overstated.”

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and the Loss of Free Speech I: Postmodernism (1)

By M.K. Styllinski


Freedom of Speech

Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint. – Encyclopedia Britannica

***

Hissy Fit

uk /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ us /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ informal: a sudden period of uncontrolled and silly anger like a child. – Cambridge English Dictionary

 


What Happened?

No, the above sub-heading is not a reference to Hillary Clinton’s embarrassingly awful publishing deal in which she attempts to cast herself as saintly victim of (non-existent) Russian malfeasance.  This is about what happened to the principles of the left and its liberal brother; why we are seeing such psychological chaos rising up through left-liberal activism and the younger, socially-minded generations.

Take a look a some of these headlines from the past few years:

Institutional child abuse: First grader sent to principal’s office after ‘misgendering’ classmate

Denmark Offers Homes, Education To Jihadists In “Hug A Terrorist” Rehab Program

Stanford University course to study ‘abolishing  whiteness’  

Teacher suspended after ‘calling a trans boy a girl’

SJWs finally lose it: California college students claim no such thing as truth, ‘Truth’ is a tool of white supremacy

Berkeley snowflakes protest mid-term tests, demand ‘take-home’ exams instead 

Compelled speech comes to Canada: Citizens using the ‘wrong’ gender pronoun could be accused of hate crimes

Collapse of masculinity: Millennial men turning to plastic surgery to increase self esteem  

Hyper-activists target Confederate monuments across U.S. as Baltimore calls for them to be torn down

France may set age of consent at 13 after man acquitted of raping 11yo

Fired Google engineer Damore says the company is hiring and promoting workers based on race or gender 

Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men 

Black Lives Matter: Being born a white person automatically makes you a racist 

———————

Alarming no?

30 years ago when I was a young, very bewildered 18 year-old, I was firmly of the belief that environmentalism and a liberal sprinkling of old school Marxism was just the ticket for a more humane and just society. Times have radically changed. Or maybe I just grew up. If my 18 year-old self could have had a brief window into his 48 year old future self that now sides with conservative values over left-liberal activism, he would have shook his head at the horror of it all.

Admittedly, I often think I’ve of stumbled into an alternate reality.

The truth is, I don’t naturally resonate to conservatism, moderate or otherwise. If you had to rubber stamp my forehead with an “-ism” then it would have to be agorism with a dash of old, peace-loving anarchism in the truest sense of the word. Nevertheless, I count myself as a liberal on certain issues, more libertarian or conservative on others. Call it a pick ‘n’ mix position of the best that our philosophical and political traditions can offer.

Shouldn’t that be the whole point in a sane and rational world?

Most political ideologies – much like most religions – have at their inception nuggets of golden knowledge which can potentially enrich societies. Obviously, that approach is not what we have in the world;  only “My way or the highway” rules the day. Equally, this is not about whether we are left or right-leaning in our worldview and further entrenching the problem along partisan lines. This is concerned with upholding free speech for everyone so that reasoned discourse can be given the chance to prevail. Such a principle is unalterable for very precise reasons, as we will discover over the course of this series.

When I use the terms “moderate conservatism” and “left” or “left-liberal” I refer to the mindset rather than whatever political party is in power. The latter is irrelevant since the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK and the Democrat and Republican parties in the United States are still very much under the yoke of the (Deep) State’s social and economic dictates. It is this essential point that much of the left-liberal worldview is missing and gives nourishment to far right fringe groups by adopting an increasing and equally authoritarian line. This may sound very odd indeed if you consider yourself a traditional fighter of the liberal-left. But we will be explore how much of the left has been comprehensively ponerised i.e. infected by radical beliefs, in turn, turbo-charged by pathology and the implications for free speech.

I also want to make it absolutely clear that I am not throwing the baby out with the bath-water and suggesting that there is no racism, sexism or bigotry in general or that it should somehow be ignored. It does occur and it should be called out – if it is genuine. There has been great strides in addressing these issues, far greater progress has been made than one would think if listening to 3rd wave feminists, anti-racists and the like.

Which is why the focus is about those who have a vested interest in perpetuating and inflaming these “issues” due to their own psychological predispositions rather than any genuine wish to see a more equitable and fair society.

As the world becomes increasingly unstable (particularly in America) this mindset is growing like a virulent fungus and represents a dangerous threat to free speech and expression. It will mean whether we live in a democracy (however fragile that may be at present) or a form of soft totalitarianism that sometimes crudely or very subtly determines what you say or think. In other words: fascism. This is a shift which has developed through a form of neuro-hacking over decades, creating division and apparent tribalism, yet paradoxically encouraging conformity through a form of vertical collectivism. As I stated in World State Policies I:

So, what form has this “socialism” in the West actually taken? Simply put, collectivism is the opposite of individualism, where group thought, philosophy, action and principle overrides the needs of the individual. The term can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. The former is collective decision-making among largely equal individuals, and is therefore based on decentralisation, while the latter is drawn from hierarchical power structures and socio-cultural conformity, and is based on centralisation. While such a drive to group endeavour can bring out the positive aspects of our interdependence and our shared experiences across the planet, the kind of collectivism we will explore is an overreaching form that employs both vertical and distorted horizontal forms into one vast entity – its expression having been ponerised by emerging strains of psychopathy. The onset of ponerogenesis will manifest by whatever channels deemed suitable in order to achieve Pathocracy. Remember that none of these ideologies are evil in themselves, but used in a pathocratic context, they become tools of destruction.

It is manifesting in complex, perhaps irreversible ways, through the very traditions that ostensibly speak up for the oppressed and disenfranchised. Such a collective social conscience is in danger of being replaced by a something quite different. It is being seeded in the younger generations who are least able to process its effects, therefore becoming it’s primary foot-soldiers. Since they are our future, this should be a concern to us all.; if that is, we can step outside our political allegiances and look squarely at the nature of the beast.

(more…)

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.