witch-hunts

Osama and Al-Qaeda IV: The Bogeyman

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.”

– Osama bin Laden, October, 2001.


The hunt for Osama Bin Laden cost the US government about the same amount of time and money it took to send men to the moon: ten years and $100 billion. But for some, this is a conservative estimate with more probable figures reaching as high as a trillion dollars. [1] This makes the behaviour of successive US administrations even more inexplicable until that is you accept the high probability that Osama bin Laden – the former CIA asset in 1980s Afghanistan and whose oil-banking family did business with the Bush dynasty – almost certainly died in the latter half of September 2001 from kidney failure. [2] There was even a funeral announcement published in the December 26, 2001 in an edition of the Egyptian newspaper Al Wafdeven.  

Though clearly a faithful of supporter of a Holy War against the United States and Zionism he did not take responsibility for the September 11th attacks, and actually expressed contempt toward the actions of whoever did perpetrate the atrocity. As a follower of Qutbism, a violent resistance against what he saw as the moral and spiritual decadence of the United States was unavoidable in order to be true to the tenets of Islam. This did not however extend to civilians, the deaths of which are traditionally a state-sponsored action to gain needed emotional ammunition from its population.

113634012-HOsama bin Laden: CIA asset that was setup?

In a rare interview, in all probability shortly before his death, bin Laden stated:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims. […]

… we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word. [3]

al-wafd02

Al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633 Translation of article title: “News of Bin Laden’s Death and Funeral 10 days ago”  Read more

Though many will not agree with the above sentiments and an argument can be made that bin Laden exhibits the traits of classic religious fanaticism, the above does not fit with the history of what we know of the real bin Laden. Many of his statements are grounded in fact. He knew very well the nature of Anglo-American governments and their business interests believing that “[The American system] sacrifices soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.” He was deeply cognizant of contemporary Western thinkers and praised liberal academics like Noam Chomsky stating: “Chomsky is amongst the greatest [thinkers] of the West.” Bin Laden expressed repugnance at what he saw as American hypocrisy masquerading as a global moral crusade while creating the exact opposite in the world. It was not that Muslims hated them for their freedoms but how a nation pretending to be a democracy was imposed on others. In bin Laden’s eyes the US was indeed “The Great Satan.” He stated: “A man with human feelings in his heart does not distinguish between a child killed in Palestine or in Lebanon, in Iraq or in Bosnia. So how can we believe your claims … while you kill our children in all of those places?” [4]

Contrary to attempts by US media to extract a “confession” from spurious interviews no evidence ever came to light that bin Laden was involved with the attacks on 9/11 which was why, despite being on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list, no mention of 9/11 is made. There is no “hard evidence.” [5] However misguided and ruthless, bin-Laden was fully aware of the nature of the forces arraigned against him and his beloved Islam: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse.” It was the strength of Islam viewed through his own beliefs which allowed his destiny to become the primary icon of CIA induced “blowback”; to be used as the perfect tool in a major false flag operation.

For a myth to continue to hold its power it must be injected with the requisite emotional ingredients and stirred for maximum effect, which is where PSYOPS comes in.

clapper-boardEveryone knows how easy it is to manipulate images. Whether using Photoshop for your holiday photos or the Computer Generated Images (CGI) of the Hollywood blockbusters which can literally create new worlds, reality can be malleable in ways undreamt of. In the hands of the military-intelligence apparatus with technological applications far in advance of the public market it is not just easy to align multi-media sophistication with public relations, but a necessity. No one can seriously entertain the idea that such possibilities are off limits to those without any scruples and who are willing to use technology to further their own desires.

The myth-making machine has been working over-time in relation to the Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden story with a blend of CIA-MOSSAD inspired PSYOPS. The nature of any kind of genuine fundamentalism – Islamic or otherwise – means that it reaches a crescendo of conflict where it is difficult to know what is fake and what is real. Jihad martyr videos are liberally uploaded to the internet, often after Intel agents have manipulated the content. Sleeper agents or unconscious dupes already integrated into Al-Qaeda cells can then carry out their duties on behalf of their paymasters – or Allah. It has never been easier to pull the wool over our eyes, even when video manipulation is shoddy in the extreme.

Recall the 1999 Washington Post article by William Arkin “When Seeing and Hearing isn’t Believing,” where he described the new technology of ‘voice morphing’ or ‘voice synthesizing’, explaining that, “if audio technicians have a recording of your voice, then they can create a tape in which your authentic voice says anything they wish.” [6] What we can be sure of is that a large proportion of videos circulated on the internet at politically opportune moments have proven to be fake.

In early 2003, Iraq provided another testing ground for not just planting stories in the world’s media but to create fake videos to keep the war on terror narrative alive in the public’s mind and therefore promote the objective of regime change and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The CIA’s Iraq Operations Group floated ideas to show Hussein as a paedophile molesting a boy and “… to flood Iraq with the videos…” As cultural constraints made this concept unworkable, it was soon dropped. Other ideas included the interruption of Iraqi television programming with a fake special news bulletins and fake inserts or “crawls”—messages at the bottom of the screen—into Iraqi newscasts. The CIA also began playing with the idea of an Osama bin laden impersonator. The Washington Post reports that the CIA abandoned the projects leaving the way open for their revival in military circles. As one military official comments: “The military took them over,” due to the “… assets in psy-war down at Ft. Bragg,” at the Army’s Special Warfare Centre.[7] (One wonders how many paid bin Laden, Hussein and other high profile figures have been paraded for media consumption).

cia-logo

Hot on the heels of September 11th attacks, the CIA embarked on a massive propaganda campaign to fuse Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. With the help of Britain’s Tony Blair, the idea of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was cooked up as a further PR exercise.

This matches the production quality of subsequent videos which appeared on the scene as the CIA project was taken over by the Pentagon at some point after 2003. This is most evident in the video released just prior to the 2004 election and an obviously digitally manipulated duplicate from 2007, in which bin Laden is sporting a trimmed, dyed beard and a bottled sun-tan. It was not just Intel groups having fun with their video collections. At the level of the mainstream US and British media videos were often edited in line with government policy.

When Osama Bin Laden videos periodically surfaced throughout the Iraq war and up to his alleged Hollywood-esque death it was inevitable that they would be thoroughly cleansed of all references and remarks that might prove problematic to the accepted “Osama-under-the-bed” formula. Obviously doctored and fully fabricated videos would be given unfettered access to the mass media outlets, with the Bush Administration taking media propaganda to new heights. From 2001–2011 more than 30 audio and video recordings were released, most of which found their way to the internet.

In October 2001, bin Laden appeared on Al Jazeera, in a pre-recorded video statement shortly after US-led strikes on Afghanistan begin. It was the first time the Al-Qaeda leader had apparently spoken after the 9/11 attacks. Sitting in a flack-jacket next to his right hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri he proceeds to softly berate the United States. No responsibility for the 9/11 attacks is forthcoming. A common and frustrating characteristic of the video and subsequent offerings was the lack of date or time stamp which meant there was no way to know when and where it was made. Bin Laden states: “What the United States tastes today is a very small thing compared to what we have tasted for tens of years.” He praises those responsible, saying, “I ask God Almighty to elevate their status and grant them paradise.” [8] Zionist and Bush Administration Press Secretary wasted no time in drawing our attention to the obvious fact that bin Laden “virtually took responsibility” for 9/11, despite explicitly denying his involvement. This soon turned bin Laden into designated arch-terrorist No.1 commensurate with Zion-Conservative planning. [9]

Saudi-born alleged terror mastermind Osama bin Lad

Osama bin Laden speech released October 2001. Date of video: unknown (AFP/Getty Images)

On December 13, 2001, a home video was apparently filmed without his knowledge and conveniently found in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. It was reportedly delivered to the CIA; by whom, no one knows. The video shows a conversation between Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda spokesman Suliman abu Ghaith, and Al-Qaeda veteran Khaled al-Harbi. The Pentagon delivered what could be loosely called a “translation” to all major news outlets which was so in line with the official 9/11 story of the day and similarly riven with errors and fallacies as to be wholly unbelievable. The Bush Administration screamed from their Neo-Con pulpit that this was definitive proof, effectively calling for an end to any doubts as to the intent of Al-Qaeda and their culpable Commander-in-Chief. However, it wasn’t long before even some within the MSM began to have serious doubts about its authenticity. So many people began scratching their heads that Bush was forced to comment exclaiming in true reactionary form that it was: “preposterous for anybody to think this tape was doctored. Those who contend it’s a farce or a fake are hoping for the best about an evil man.” [10]

Apart from the obvious fact this video could easily have been faked by anyone, it is also true that previous videos had usually been given their formal consent by bin Laden and passed through to the Arabic Al-Jazeera network. It didn’t happen on that occasion and subsequently many others. More importantly, the person in the video is clearly not bin laden no matter how hard the Bush administration and 9/11 debunkers scream and shout that it is. As 9/11 journalist and Islamic studies historian Dr. Kevin Barrett noted, the person in the video is “at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier, and his facial features [are] obviously different…” all of which led the video to be dubbed the “Fatty Bin-Laden tape” and widely ridiculed. [11]

bin_laden_confession

A still from the “confession” video showing advisor Khaled al-Harbi speaking with “Osama bin Laden”. (historycommons.org)

Dr. David Ray Griffin offered another problem with the video by pointing out that:

“… its stocky bin Laden praised two of the alleged hijackers, Wail M. Al-Shehri and Salem al-Hazmi, by name, and yet both the London Telegraph and the Saudi embassy reported several days after 9/11 that al-Hazmi was still alive and working in Saudi Arabia. Given the fact that the earlier video in which Osama confessed was clearly a fake, we should be suspicious of this latest apparent confession.” [12]

We then come to what this imposter actually said. The latest “bin-Laden” gave a convenient up-date on the technical details of the 9/11 narrative as if to quell any criticism of the official story :

“[W]e calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all… (inaudible)… due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is what we had hoped for.” He continues: “We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time.… Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington.… At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center … After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it.” [13] [Emphasis mine]

The above passage is distinctive for its hackneyed attempts at creating a 9/11 script and placing it at the foot of bin Laden. Firstly, sentences in italics referring to the reasons and causes for the WTC destruction, are so closely aligned to the official story that it becomes far too pat. It is especially odd that “bin Laden” refers to the Twin Towers as made of iron rather than steel. For a trained civil engineer as he was, this is nonsensical. [14] The reference to not revealing information to the “brothers” until: “… just before they boarded the planes,” is also curious as all of the alleged hijackers bought their tickets for the 9/11 flights two weeks in advance, not forgetting flight training for the leaders. The pilots and the hijackers all knew each other and had contact with each other prior and during the flights which is the opposite to what is said in the video. [15]

clip_image002_thumb.jpg

Spot the Bin Laden. Clue: He isn’t on the left. Yet, US authorities would like you to believe that this is the same man captured on video in December 2001. Source: Reuters

A German TV show also confirmed that the translation provided by the Pentagon was seriously flawed. Professor Gernot Rotter, scholar of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the University of Hamburg found that the: “… tape is of such poor quality that many passages are unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can’t use that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added things that they wanted to hear in many places.”  [16]

Further incredulity was to arrive in January 2004, as research into several audio recordings allegedly made by bin Laden was carried out. Professor Richard Muller of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded there was evidence of “cut and paste” editing from past recordings, believing that the audio examples are fake and bin Laden either “dead or injured.” He pointed the finger at Al-Qaeda’s difficulties in countering American counter-terrorism rather than CIA fabrication. [17]

In the same year on October 29, immediately prior to the US elections (a curiously common occurrence for Al-Qaeda audio and video messages) an alleged bin Laden video recording was

released which came to be known as the “Towers of Lebanon Speech” in which he explained his vengeful reasons for planning 9/11: “As I looked at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the oppressor in kind by destroying towers in America, so that it would have a taste of its own medicine and would be prevented from killing our women and children.” The individual also heavily criticised Bush by highlighting some of his bizarre actions on that day: “It did not occur to us that the commander in chief of the American armed forces would leave fifty thousand of his citizens in the two towers to face this great horror on their own, just when they needed him most. It seems that a little girl’s story about a goat and its butting was more important than dealing with airplanes and their butting into skyscrapers.” [18] This was referring to Bush’s behaviour when told that America was under attack he continued reading to the class of schoolchildren and sat in the class for another half an hour so as not to “scare them.” The speech also criticised security, corporate control and US–Israel imperialism.

Perhaps the most important question to ask is who benefited from this particular video at pre-election time? It is widely accepted at the time that rather than hurting Bush’s popularity it would actually help to ensure his re-election by stirring the memories of 9/11 and America under attack, thus fuelling the fires of religious nationalism. [19] Bush sailed on to victory with ghost runner and fellow Bonesman John Kerry left in his wake.

An audio recording from May 2006 arrived in the post claiming to be the latest sermon from Osama. It asserts that Guantanamo Bay terrorist Zacharias Moussaoui could not have been involved in 9/11, because he had personally assigned the 19 hijackers involved in those events. The latest bin-Laden therefore contradicts his original and authentic message of December 2001 and suddenly confesses his responsibility for orchestrating the attacks. [20]

Sure, he just forgot…

And what of the identities of the hijackers themselves? It seems that seven of those he ‘personally assigned’ had nothing at all to do with 9/11 and turned out to be alive and well. More coincidences? Or flaws in an extensive cover-up characterised by an ever-present ineptitude?

***

Previous releases of tapes by Intelcenter the U.S. monitoring group which describes its role as providing: “counterterrorism intelligence when, where & how you need it” extends to manufacturing and fabricating video tapes on behalf of “Al-Qaeda.” The company delivered several videos to the Western media press from 2006–2008, even selling them on their website at intelcenter.org. Most of the videos have been conclusively proven to be culled together from old footage dating from five years previously, yet they continue to be seen as authentic by the MSM. [21]

Intelcenter is an offshoot of IDEFENSE, a web security company that monitors intelligence from the Middle East. It is positively crawling with ex-military intelligence veterans, US Army and Defence Intelligence Agency individuals, many of whom have ties to Zio-Conservatives of the last Bush Administration. IntelCenter has been caught red-handed fabricating video evidence in order to attribute it to Al-Qaeda terrorist networks on a number of occasions. 

siteIt was on another anniversary on September 11th 2007 that we saw another video shunted off the Al-Qaeda-CIA home movie production line with a contribution credit to Intelcenter. The “video” consisted of a still picture of Osama “provided” by the controversial US-Based SITE Institute and given to Associated Press on 7 September of that year. Describing itself as an organization “that provides information related to terrorist networks to the government, news media, and general public,” SITE’s non-profit status has earned it more than $500,000 from the government”, with “over $273,000” coming directly from taxpayers in 2004. [22] But “the organization believes such work is consistent with its exempt purposes”, which of course it would, raking in that amount of money.  [23]

SITE Executive Director Rita Katz co-founded the intelligence company with her husband and senior analyst Josh Devon, both committed Zionists with links to Israeli intelligence. Having worked with former terrorism Czar Richard Clarke and his staff in the White House, the Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Homeland Security garnering: “… wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE’s methodology.” [24]  Professor Bruce Hoffman is also listed as a senior advisor and “currently a tenured professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Washington, DC.” Not only has Hoffman residing at the notorious recruiting ground for the Liberal arm of the 3EM, but had a post as Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency and a directorship
of the Rockefeller/Rothschild connected RAND Corporation, also conveniently in Washington DC. Recall that RAND has a long association with PSYOPS research. (Indeed, the description of the corporation’s successful PSYOPS implementation can be read in a 2007 178 page document originally prepared for the US Air Force titled: Project Air Force by Stephen T. Hosmer).

b2ap3_thumbnail_Rita-CNN

Rita Katz co-founder of the SITE Institute doing what she does best: keeping the war on terror narrative flowing by propagating (and possibly creating) numerous Al-Qaeda videos made fresh for the internet. BE AFRAID! Is the message. SITE is likely a PSYOPS front for MOSSAD masquerading as a legitimate intelligence gathering operation for mainstream media. By 2015, we have seen Katz getting behind the new bogeyman meme this time in the guise of ISIS/ISIL, better known as Islamic State, the new kids on the propaganda block designed to up the ante in emotional horror in the mass mind. 

Previous to her post as SITE director Katz worked as Research Director of “The Investigative Project on Terrorism” and served as a counsel for the plaintiffs—Families of victims of September 11 terrorist attacks who happen to be suing Saudi princes for $116 trillion of damages from the loss of life in September 11. She was also hired by 1,000 relatives of those who died on September 11th in order to research terrorism. A civil lawsuit was filed in 2002 against those suspected of financing terror plots. No doubt spurred on by the legacy of the Muslim Brotherhood, Katz however continued to earn substantial sums of money from the Homeland Security and intelligence raids on Muslim think tanks and institutions, much of it based on her own research alone.

She is also the author of Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America published 2003 by HarperCollins, owned by ardent Israel supporter Rupert Murdoch. To say that this should be categorised as a work of fiction is an understatement. The breathless title gives you all you need to know as to the plot, and is thus utterly false since gender restriction means that fundamentalist gatherings would allow no woman to be present save Katz taking on some of the false beards and make-up seen in her own videos. Regardless, she has managed to create quite a money spinner. And like so many in the terror industry, the SITE Institute has much to gain financially by keeping the Intel flowing into American and Israeli military-security complex.

Katz and Devon are part of an outsourced unit that is effectively part of the Zio-Conservative and government intelligence apparatus. The website describes itself as a “monitoring service” on the Jihadist threat,” which is severely problematic considering the couple’s obvious lack of impartiality against anything associated with the Arab nationalism, let alone the war on terror. One might even say this is about as obvious an Israeli PSYOPS operation as its possible to be.  In other words, Katz’s handlers are MOSSAD.

With a fat new propaganda bogeyman in the guise of ISIL tearing up the Middle East it seems the SITE Institute’s PR role for the terror industry is set to continue. Geo-political analyst Professor James F. Tracey summed the sad state of affairs within the MSM: “Since mid-August 2014 major news organizations have conveyed videos allegedly found online by the SITE Intelligence Group. Unsurprisingly the same media have failed to closely interrogate what the private company actually is and whether the material it promotes should be accepted as genuine.” [25]

fake-bin-osama-laden-jihadi-jhn

From one fake brand to another: Osama to ISIL hatchet man “Jihadi John”

This manufacturing of threats and the subsequent erosion of civil liberties has been going on a long time now. Timothy H. Edgar, National Security Policy Counsel for the ACLU testified in April 2005 before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Committee on the Judiciary stating:

“… federal agents seized confidential files, computer hard drives, books, and other materials from some of the most respected Islamic think tanks and organizations in the United States and raided the homes of many of the leaders involved in those organizations. The search warrants targeted two entities whose main purpose involves activities at the core of the First Amendment: the Graduate School of Islamic Thought and Social Sciences (GSITSS), an institute of higher education, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), an Islamic research institute and think tank, as well as the private homes of a number of their employees and scholars,”

Apart from the danger of slipping into “witch-hunts” on a whim and therefore breaching civil rights, it seems the evidence against the organisations was less than substantial. Mr. Edgar pressed on to highlight the most important points:

“The complaint in the civil rights action says the affidavit in support of the search warrants contained fabricated material facts regarding non-existent overseas transactions. The complaint also says the search warrant affidavit was drafted with the help of private author and self-styled ‘terrorist hunter’ Rita Katz, who was paid $272,000 for her advice by the federal government and has made much more in a book deal and as a consultant for news organizations. According to federal investigators, Katz ‘lost the trust of some investigators from the FBI and Justice Department’ as a result in part of the ‘reckless conclusions’ she drew in her book, …” [Emphasis mine]

With SITE as the only source for the video and disregarding other influences, surely we could be forgiven for thinking there are not only are there severe conflict of interests but financial and public relation concerns that cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the recording.

What of the video itself? Needless to say, a few “problems” came to light.

It seems the devoutly religious and moral “Osama” has suddenly undergone a midlife crisis and sort refuge in a make-over for his adoring minions. This has resulted in a chocolate brown dyed hair and a beard suitably clipped into a more suburban, Muslim-terrorist-about-town style, topped off with a garish gold ring just to show that his taste in contemporary jewellery and his adherence to Islam do not clash. It appears the rationale of wearing of a ring which is forbidden by Muslim law, and the magical transformation of a left-handed Osama to a right-handed one is all perfectly understandable in the world that some analysts prefer to inhabit.

The SITE Institute happily made up the claim that it is “common practice” amongst Muslim men to dye their hair when in fact, the opposite is the case. According to one BBC report other analysts: “… have suggested that rather than being dyed, it may be actually false, and that to help avoid detection he is clean-shaven these days.”  [26]  Ah, of course, the old false beard trick. Works well in the caves of Afghanistan or the market streets of Pakistan. If he was a paid Osama look-alike then you have to go with what’s available. Times are hard, after all…

Given the satellite and surveillance technology that is at least sophisticated enough to read the newsprint as you sit on the John, it appears it isn’t up to the job of finding a Muslim terrorist dressed in yellow grab and a false beard. Of course, if a gaggle of Muslim terrorists are intelligent enough to pull off the biggest false flag in history and penetrate the most heavily defended region on Earth then it is probable that they would have thought about the idea of sophisticated surveillance. Yet, we asked to place our trust in the logic of a false beard nonetheless.

Moreover, the tape itself has been so hacked, chopped and generally messed around with, that it represents a frozen CGI image manipulated to give the illusion of a living, speaking human being. In the whole 26-minute recording, two short sections are sandwiched into the 26 minute recording where the man said to be bin Laden is seen talking: one at the beginning and one towards the middle. For the remaining 23 minutes of the tape we are invited to watch a still image of the speaker. (It is all the more extraordinary that no one in the MSM considers this odd. If they did, they weren’t about to say so, for obvious reasons). Apparent to anyone who has been exposed to the usual diet of a TV we can see cuts and edits all over the place, even the introduction of sections which appear to be from different recordings altogether. As noted by computer analyst Dr. Neal Krawetz of the University of Winnipeg: “… the new audio has no accompanying ‘live’ video and consists of multiple audio recordings… and there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video.”  [27]

That seems to be a tall order since Osama appears to have long since met his Maker.

 bin-laden-videos-2004-2007

(left) “Osama bin Laden” makes his Towers of Lebanon Speech in 2004 Source: Al-Jazeera | (right) A frame from “Osama bin Laden’s” 2007 video. Source: Intelcenter

Krawetz also noticed remarkably similar themes and technical details from bin Laden’s previous video, released in 2004, a few days before the US presidential election:

“[T]his is the same clothing [a white hat, white shirt and yellow sweater] he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical.” Krawetz also comments, “if you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years—only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted.”  [28]

If the Pentagon can concoct fake Al-Zarqawi letters boasting about suicide attacks and then leak them to The New York Times, to be printed on the front page the next day, it is much more than probable that videos would most certainly not be off limits.

Now, take this analysis and apply it to the present chaos that is ISIL. We have had mass civilian carnage on a scale all supported by extremely fake-looking videos, with hostages likely agreeing to stage mock set ups over a year before the televised “beheadings”. The first high profile beheading victim, journalist and anti-Assad James Foley is an example. A UK Times article reported on the findings of forensic analysts’ conclusion that the video of Foley’s beheading” was staged. Several points are made to explain why this is so, including:

  • The sounds made by Foley are not consistent with beheadings.foley1
  • There is no blood shed while ‘several cuts’ are made to the neck of Foley.
  • Foley’s words appear to have been scripted.
  • The analysis highlights a blip in the imagery that could indicate the journalist had to repeat a line.
  • Sounds made by Foley do not appear consistent with what might be expected.
  • The video begins with a clip of President Barack Obama. This footage appears to have been downloaded directly from the White House website. [29]

foley2

The propaganda video by ISIL with the victim James Foley 2014. His murder likely took place off camera.

Apart from embedded journalism which was the first red flag, Foley also worked in Iraq for a known CIA front USAID in 2009. By 2011, he had been kidnapped by Gaddafi’s military and then happened to repeat a round of bad luck with his capture in Syria. As a hostage in Libya, then again in Syria and finally beheaded by ISIS. This is a little far-fetched to say the least. As journalist Michael Krieger notes, his resume: “… reads more like a James Bond film script than that of a journalist with a teaching background.” Proof of complicity? Not really. It’s usually a mix of lies and truth with patsies not even knowing they’ve been sacrificed until it is too late.

Regardless of whether individuals were CIA/MOSSAD agents as some have suggested, they had, in truth, been murdered a long time before their few minutes of tragic fame. Once again, agents and patsies are collateral for the greater vision which follows exactly the same formula every time:

  • create / fuel radicalism through a complex mix of genuine cells and manufactured ones
  • = embed agents in chosen grouping to incite ideology to fever pitch and making sure to eject moderates
  • = Make sure a good cluster of psychopaths are present for the bloodletting and ensuing mayhem
  • = supply with bombs and assorted weaponry
  • = direct toward geopolitical aims
  • = ensure propagandized coverage via mainstream media.

Nothing has changed. The same people are in charge as they were during Al-Qaeda’s reign. The revolving door of politics has no effect on shadow government machinations. If these shoddy attempts at video manipulation are the best that outsourced military PSYOPS can come up with and the public still believes that the enemy is “out there” rather than the government and its agencies, then we are surely in for a very dark future. [30]


Notes

[1] ‘Apollo 11 Moon landing: ten facts about Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins’ mission’ The Telegraph, July 18, 2009 | See also: http://www.business.time.com/2011/05/03/how-much-has-osama-bin-laden-cost-the-us
[2] Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive? By David Ray Griffin, Published by Olive Branch Press July 2009. ISBN-10: 1566567831. Also read a great summary found surprisingly in The Daily Mail, not noted for the finest journalistic standards. This article is however, an exception: ‘Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years – and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?’ By Sue Reid
Daily Mail, 11 September 2009.
[3] Bin Laden: Authentic Interview by Carol A. Valentine, Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum, http://www.Public-Action.com October, 2001.
[4] ‘Transcript of Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett’The first-ever television interview with Osama Bin Ladin was conducted by Peter Arnett in eastern Afghanistan in late March 1997. Questions were submitted in advance. Bin Ladin responded to almost all of the questions. CNN was not allowed to ask follow up questions. The interview lasted just over an hour. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7204.htm | ‘CNN Transcript of Osama Bin Laden’s October Interview’ with Taseer Allouni February 5, 2002. Al-Jazeera reporter Allouni was sent to jail for having links to Al-Qaeda and financial irregularities. The interview in question is used by US authorities as proof that 9/11 was carried out by Bin Laden but no such proof is in evidence and allusions of which go counter to bin laden’s previous claims.
[5] ‘Osama bin Laden, among the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives”: Why was he never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11?’ By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 17, 2006.
[6] ‘When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing’ By William M. Arkin, The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1999.
[7] ‘CIA unit’s wacky idea: Depict Saddam as gay’ By Jeff Stein, The Washington Post, May 25 2010.
[8] ‘Bin Laden Taunts US and Praises Hijackers’ By John F.Burns, The New York Times, October 8, 2001. | ‘Bin Laden’s warning: full text’ BBC News, 7 October, 2001.
[9] ‘Bush: Bin Laden “virtually took responsibility” CNN.com October 8, 2001.
[10] ‘US urged to detail origin of tape’ By Steven Morris, The Guardian, December 15, 2001.
[11] p.179; Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie By Kevin Barrett Published by Progressive Press, 2007.
[12] ‘Osama Tape Appears Fake, Experts Conclude’June 1st, 2006, PRWeb.com
[13] TRANSCRIPT OF USAMA BIN LADEN VIDEO TAPE (“Transcript and annotations independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. They collaborated on their translation and compared it with translations done by the U.S. government for consistency. There were no inconsistencies in the translations). http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf.
[14] National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005,( p. 6 ) | op.cit US Department of Defense, December 13, 2001.
[15] op.cit US Department of Defense, December 13, 2001. | Flight tickets booked: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/ST00001A.pdf |, ‘The British Breeding Ground’ By Neil Mackay, The Sunday Herald September 30, 2001.
[16] ‘Bin Laden Video: Faulty Translation as evidence?’By George Restle and Ekkehard Seiker, Monitor TV December 20, 2001.
[17] ‘The Voice of Osama bin Laden: Osama’s voice on tape proves that the leader of al Qaeda is still alive. Or does it?’ By Richard A. Muller, MIT Technology Review, Communications News, January 23, 2004.
[18] p.237; Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, By Osama bin Laden (Author), Bruce Lawrence (Editor), James Howarth (Translator) Published by Verso, 2005. | ISBN-10: 1844670457.
[19] ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’ -Recent Video of Bin Laden Airs; Iraq Missing Explosives Still an Issue Aired CNN.com October 29, 2004. Transcript: www. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/29/ldt.01.html
[20] ‘Osama Tape Appears Fake, Experts Conclude ’US government fabricating evidence to manipulate American public, scholars say. Duluth, MN (PRWEB) May 30, 2006.
[21] ‘CIA-Linked Intel Center Releases Highly Suspicious Bin Laden Tape’ By Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com, September 14, 2009.
[22] Ibid.
[23]
http://www.SITEinstitute.org/
[24]
‘SO, A ‘Charitable Organization’ (The SITE Institute) Released the Bin Laden Video…,’ By Berni McCoy, Berni McCoy’s Journal/Democratic Underground, September 10, 2007 | ‘Leak Severed a Link to Al-Qaeda’s Secrets. Firm Says Administration’s Handling of Video Ruined Its Spying Efforts,’ By Joby Warrick, Washington Post, October 9, 2007.
[25] ‘Who is Behind the Islamic State (ISIL) Beheadings? Probing the SITE Intelligence Group’ By Prof. James F. Tracy, Global Research, September 15, 2014
[26] ‘Trimmed Bin Laden in media-savvy war’ By Frank Gardner, BBC News, September 8, 2007.
[27] ‘Bin Laden’s beard is real, video is not’ Digital evidence supports the theory that Al-Qaida is recycling old footage to create new messages. – by Robert Vamosi, http://www.news.cnet.com, September 12, 2007. | op.cit BBC News, (Gardener.)
[28] Ibid.
[29] ‘Foley video with Briton was staged, experts say’ By Deborah Haynes, The Times, August 25 2014.
[30] For further analysis of the video fakery see this article from 2011: ‘Exclusive: Osama bin Laden’s Nose and Left Ear’ By Joe Quinn Sott.net. 08 May 2011.

The Old Boys’ Club II: Waterhouse and Whitewash

“There is no doubt about it now, from what we know, that she [Margaret Thatcher] turned a blind eye to people who were quite clearly paedophiles. That is absolutely clear.”

– Simon Danczuk MP for Rochdale, regarding the Westminster paedophile ring


Margaret Thatcher wasn’t the only one of course. She was simply a Prime Minister amongst many who toed the Establishment line in the same way that BBC executives chose to ignore the obvious to the point of complicity. As children were being abused right under her very nose she chose to place her trust in fear, money, prestige and power the very tools by which Official Culture stays on top. She acted as protector of evil and thus became its tool.

Let’s return to Richard Webster’s important book, briefly explored in the last post.

Trying to do the right thing in such a highly sensitive domain is fraught with insurmountable problems of a subjective and emotional nature, dealing as it does with the emotive question of child abuse. In one sense, Webster’s explorations are sorely needed, yet worryingly, for such a wide-ranging exploration of child care abuse – which he maintains is largely false – there were key elements and evidence that he did not include but were vital to the argument. It is clear that he knew of the information yet he chose to exclude it, suggesting clear bias on the part of the author.

Richard Scorer, of Partner, Pannone & Partners, a lawyers firm specialising in child abuse cases and who represented clients at the tribunal level, commented in a review: “I would put a stark health warning on the front of the book. This is a very unbalanced book, and in some instances Webster is economical with the facts.” He believes Webster’s bias in favour of those accused of child abuse may have: “… blunt[ed] his critical faculties and balanced assessment of the evidence.” He also maintained that the author “… excluded or downplayed information which contradicts his case” most particularly that the idea Peter Howarth was not a paedophile. According to Scorer, several of his witnesses had no interest in compensation and made no claims. They verified Howarth’s orientation as a paedophile by direct experience. Nor did they have contact with Alison Taylor the primary whistleblower.

Other witnesses provided similar statements but none of this evidence was mentioned in Webster’s research. Richard Scorer described his concerns thusly: “In the context of Webster’s argument this evidence is important, particularly because none of it has the features which Webster alleges contaminated the criminal prosecution of Howarth, i.e., the involvement of Alison Taylor and the so-called compensation motive. All three of these witnesses also defy Webster’s stereotype of the typical Bryn Estyn complainant as a drug-addled criminal (L is a successful businessman, C an advanced systems analyst and member of MENSA).”

Scorer raises the problem of severe bias in evaluating evidence which does not fit his line of inquiry and thus discarded:

“Webster is claiming to have demolished the case against Howarth, so you’d expect that he would have something to say about these allegations, particularly where, as in the case of my clients (and other Tribunal witnesses), the contaminating factors he claims to have identified elsewhere were absent. However Webster simply ignores this adverse evidence, and only mentions in passing at the very end of the book that there are, in fact, 30 other sets of allegations which he has neglected to consider. […] Who knows what other inconvenient details have been left out of the picture?” [1]

The portrayal of the whistleblower Alison Taylor as pathological appears to be disingenuous insofar as other players in the case are not given a similarly rigorous analysis; the individual members of the North Wales Police, for instance, being extremely deserving of further scrutiny. Taylor is deemed to be unstable and to have a financial axe to grind and no more.

The late Peter Howarth, jailed in 1994 for his part in the Bryn Estyn abuse scandal.

However, it was due to Taylor and her subsequent sacking that the abuse gradually came to light, though it was through Stephen Norris a self-confessed paedophile and home manager who once worked at Bryn Estyn, which finally got the investigative ball rolling. Quite apart from the fact that the Waterhouse inquiry, however toothless, proved the existence of a paedophile ring which targeted young boys, and concluded that whilst “the evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care … such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches”. [2] Yet in his 700 page book, Webster gave only a few lines to this salient fact.

Keeping in mind the central tenet of his claims, that Bryn Estyn was a witch hunt with no evidence of any cover-up or conspiracy, we would do well to remember that children at the home and other institutions were easily intimidated into silence. As with the many victims of Catholic Church’s paedophile priests and pederasts, it often took the passage of many years for the victims to have the courage of their convictions to admit it to themselves, let alone face a court trial. While the tragedy of some innocent men and women serving time for something they did not do seems beyond doubt, the sequence of events that led to this “witch hunt” does not necessarily mean that these were the only dynamics on display. And what of the overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn and beyond, which was ignored by the local Clwyd County Council because the council insurers advised against any action?

Webster, in his “forensic analysis” and blanket access to witness and police files, still neglected to include evidence provided by The Andy Sutton case. The full Public Interest Report by Andy Sutton can be found on the Freedom to Care internet website which detailed how key files were held back from the Waterhouse Enquiry by Flintshire County Council, who acted on behalf of North Wales Councils as a whole. Sutton was further warned not to pursue his inquiries by the then head of the North Wales Fraud Squad with the cryptic injunction to “beware of the Brotherhood.” [3] 

For all Webster’s excellent research, at no time does he seriously address the facts regarding freemasonic involvement in North Wales. Rather, he ironically falls into the very assumptions against which he rails and draws from the sensationalism of tabloid newspapers. A long list of names provided by the Crown Prosecution Service affirmed those who were not practicing freemasons were proof enough that no measure of control was operating. Yet surely, where high levels of masons do exist in both the law and the police force nationally, not forgetting the high membership in North Wales alone, is this not an area worthy of investigative digging? It does make one wonder if such denials of masonic influence, naturally bound by secrecy, can ever claim to be mere “observers.”

Impartiality of the law enforcement and judiciary will remain in these cases when so many freemasons are in positions to exert undue influence. Remember, Child molesters / psychopaths gravitate to places where they can be protected by those who are ostensibly serving the greater good.

The late investigative journalist Simon Regan in his now defunct Scallywag magazine made some investigations of his own that merit consideration.

Regan described how he had interviewed twelve young men, former inmates of Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring. The interviews were conducted in the informal setting of pub lunches with a view to obtaining sworn affidavits which were to be used as added clout for a series of paedophile articles Regan later published. Regan believed that two of the men who would have been 14 years old at the time were introduced on a few occasions to an abuser at a Pimlico address, the building of which they later identified:

“… turned out to be the private flat of a well-known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the ‘cash for questions’ scandal. […] At the time we ran a story entitled ‘Boys for Questions’ and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

The lobbyist was a notorious ‘queen’ who specialised in gay parties with a ‘political mix’ in the Pimlico area – most convenient to the Commons – and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children’s homes other than North Wales. There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names. [4]

Regan also related how the deputy head of Research at Conservative party Central Office purchased the contents – including all files – of the Scallywag offices through a court order and the exploitation of a legal loophole in the renting conditions of the premises. During the court case however, Regan requested to see the purloined files and permission was granted in lieu of his defence. The paedophile documents were missing.  As Regan mentioned: “This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.” [5]


baghestani20121117111552253

Former Lib-Dem MP Cyril Smith (centre) in 1987 an alleged serial paedophile

“Fears of an establishment cover-up of sex abuse allegations have grown after claims that a special branch officer tried to prevent detectives from interviewing a man who alleged that a British MP abused children.”- Press TV.

(See: Politics of Entrapment I)


Like other cases where accusations of organised child abuse networks have occurred, the tribunal, under Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, heard how more than a dozen people who had complained of abuse had met suspicious deaths. John Allen, a convicted paedophile, ran homes in London and North Wales that supplied children to wealthy outsiders. Two young brothers who were abused by Allen were trying to blackmail him. In April 1992 one of them died in a house fire in Brighton and the other was found dead soon afterwards in mysterious circumstances. This may be one reason Mr. Waterhouse imposed strict reporting restrictions which prevented any names entering the public domain, and quashed hopes that the press would be able to report proceedings using the laws of privilege. Such a process would have allowed them to name names in court proceedings without fear of defamation actions. Waterhouse decided that the press could not report the name of any of the accused unless they had previously been convicted of similar offences, which, on the face of it was a prudent measure keeping in mind Richard Webster’s analysis. Unfortunately, this would also allow already protected paedophiles to remain in a hermetically sealed state of immunity.

At least one high level member of another political party was also implicated. William Hague, then Welsh Secretary who had ordered the inquiry discussed it with ministers at the time and it was believed that the individual’s name would likely be revealed during the hearings. Prime Minister John Major was known to have loathed the politician in question and was not overly concerned at this possibility. Although names of politicians on both sides of the political spectrum were also named, one public figure was given immunity by Waterhouse in the final report and not found “culpable of any crimes, even though he ha[d] been identified by six victims.” [5]

One report by Tony Hyland of the International Worker had this to say about Conservative party, government paedophiles:

The most revealing evidence is that regarding one of the paedophiles, who it was hinted at was one of Mrs Thatcher’s most prominent supporters. When the police finally arrested 17 suspects during an inquiry in 1991 the victim claims, ‘For some unknown reason, he was not arrested like anybody else. He was allowed to walk round the North Wales Police headquarters and he was allowed to vindicate himself from anything, as if he was the boss… I tried to tell the police of many instances not just relating to him and I was told at the time, and I will never forget it as long as I live, that they were not interested in that.’ The tribunal was informed that the North Wales police had in fact recommended that the man be prosecuted, but this was blocked by the Crown Prosecution Service in London — which took over the case from its local branch. [6]

Keeping in mind the wily ways of political expediency, it might be said that an inquiry of this nature which was designed to allow full public scrutiny, would have had built-in protections for the politicians, policemen, clergy and freemasons who were rumoured to be part of the North Wales paedophile ring and who would have been liable for prosecution. Perhaps it would be foolish to have thought that such an inquiry on abuse, the first of its kind, would have been allowed to expose the rot in Establishment circles. No doubt many senior politicians and policemen breathed a sigh of relief when the case was closed in 1998 but over 650 abused young adults had meantime, been raped and battered, had turned to petty crime or ended up living on the streets. All those who had not committed suicide were dealing with psychological scars that would remain with them for life. Those individuals who were innocent of wrongdoing were sent to jail and those that perpetrated the crimes laid low and continued their otherwise normal lives.

What was also astonishing is that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Social Services at the Welsh Office, responsible for establishing the mandate for the Waterhouse inquiry was himself sentenced and jailed for 14 years in 1999 for serious sexual offences and for physical abuse of children. One need not take the greatest leap in logic to see that such an inquiry may have been compromised from the beginning. In the end, the same policy of apathy and incompetence from police and council officials dogged the inquiry, to the extent that papers went missing and statements were changed or witnesses become afraid for their lives. Once again, the trail led to some of the highest levels of the then Conservative government.

***

In the United Kingdom, the serious lack of social provision and the fragmentation of the family unit create fertile grounds for child victims. The crumbling social infrastructure coupled with inadequate support social service workers inevitably leads to malpractice and corruption and from within. As one writer notes following the University of Bristol’s  The Widening Gap report of 1999: “If Britain were divided into two nations, one containing the richer regions and the other the poorer ones, there would be nearly 80,000 more deaths every year in the poorer nation because of inequality. Epidemiologists would normally call this a plague.” The author further comments that “… researchers state[d] that the gap between rich and poor has widened more rapidly in Britain and levels of poverty are higher than in the vast majority of mainland Europe.” And poverty means a resource for child exploitation. Chronic underpayment of residential care staff, a demoralized work force, the highest working hours in Europe and a drop in social work applications by 50 percent from 1999 all increase the likelihood of family and institutional child abuse. [7]

Fifteen years later thanks to the legacies of Thatcher and Blair almost a third of all UK children live in poverty with 1.6 million of these children enduring severe poverty with a large spike in 2015 thanks to the bailout of the banking industry which meant austerity measures for rest of us, hitting the already poor and vulnerable the hardest.  According to Children’s charity Dr. Barnados: “63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .”  What does that say about the success of an economic framework which consistently favours an iniquitous banking system maintained by these cyclic austerity measures? And since the Westminster paedophile ring was also drawn from one of the highest child poverty demographics it is little wonder that they drew from a wellspring of victims. Where there is poverty there is always a ready supply.

eh

a

_70546180_childpoverty_v2

When the Waterhouse report was published it provided a snapshot of the state of child care in the UK, not least the rapid dismantling of the welfare state with nothing but the American model of social exclusion to replace it. With over two decades of serious underfunding in child care and social service in general, this becomes a significant factor in the manifestation of abuse. The Inquiry found a serious lack of financial resources for children’s services, a lack of suitable staffing and generally inadequate provision at all levels. Like education, the return to authoritarian and antiquated ideals has led to retribution rather than rehabilitation and sees children facing Crown Court trials for murder, sexual assault and rape and their placement on the sex offenders register. This means that children as young as 10 are subject to punishment by the courts if their behaviour is deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or “distress to others”. It means a child of 12 years old can now be imprisoned or sent to a “secure accommodation” – a euphemism for prison. With these kinds of draconian measures, we are encouraging a new generation of emotionally damaged children who are indeed, “lost in care” indicative of a justice system in Britain that is becoming a reflection of the more advanced stages of an American ponerogenesis. [8]

We are now living in what George Monbiot calls a: “Captive State” [9] where hundreds of children in young offenders’ institutions are being held in solitary confinement, often for weeks at a time, in what prison reform campaigners claim is a ‘medieval’ form of punishment. Rather than being subjected to a form of torture, the boys should be given the mental health support they so badly need yet are being purposely denied. [10] Indeed, Blair and subsequent politicians believe that we should now target children that are “a menace to society.”   The former Prime Minister turned global tycoon received a rightly cool reception to his statements with suggestions that he was advocating “genetic determinism.” One response derided him as exacting “empty threats to pregnant mothers” which would: “… do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years.” [11]

The abuse of boys and girls still remains in the bastions of a decaying Empire that has left only the residue of an out-of-date adherence to an old, class-based ethos of control. Or as George Monbiot once described it within the hallowed halls of preparatory schools for the rich: “new boys were routinely groped and occasionally sodomised by the prefects. Sexual assault was and possibly still is a feature of prep school life as innate as fried bread and British bulldogs.” [12]  It is this in-bred, all pervading, upper class prerogative of abuse that is in the very walls of our so called respected British institutions. These historical traditions allow the abuse to live on through the pathological clusters that promote the structural dominance of their kind and a steady supply of victims. The only difference is degree within such a blighted structure. Whether we focus on political parties of New Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative – the elite differences are irrelevant when it comes to the sodomy of a 10 year-old child or the frightened street urchin delivered to the bed of a priest or politician.

Paedophiles and child rapists have no dividing line or loyalties when it comes to finding their cover whether that be within secret fraternity – political, occult or religious.

 


Notes

[1] Partner, Pannone & Partners, childabuselawyers.com/
[2] pp.58-59 ‘Lost in Care’ The Waterhouse Report 2000 Stationery Office.
[3] The Sutton Report at freedomtocare.co.uk/
[4] ‘Child Abuse – The Waterhouse Report’ By Simon Regan, 20 February 2000, http://www.scallywag.org.[now defunct]
[5] Ibid.
[6] ‘State Cover-Up of High-Level Paedophile Ring’ By Tony Hyland, International Worker No 241, November 8, 1997.
[7] ‘Growing social divide in Britain’ Blair seeks to refute new study on the widening gap between rich and poor, Simon Wheelan, 11 December 1999, World Socialist Website.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Captive StateThe Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot Published by Pan Books, 2000. |ISBN 0-330-36943-1.
[10] ‘Children caged alone for weeks’ by Jamie Doward, The Observer, February 12, 2006.
[11] ‘We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair, Intervention ‘could prevent later problems’ Package of proposals courts controversy by Lee Glendinning,  The Guardian, September 1, 2006.
[12] ‘Acceptable Cruelty’ by George Monbiot, The Guardian, March 26th, 1998.

Rule of Law? IV: Gender Bending and the True Enemy

images

© infrakshun

Feminism – at least as we know it today – and its various complex sub-categories of benign and malign forces had its beginnings way back in the 19th century. The religious influences upon men and women had defined those roles for millennia; the assumed inferiority to man and her qualities of “temptress” alongside “feminine wisdom” was the backdrop to the burning of witches in the Middle Ages to the witch-hunts of the 17th century and the stultifying sexual repression of Victorian England.

In the United States, the roles of men and women were already defined before the Founding Fathers arrived and changed Native American lives forever. Long before the UK suffragettes began rebelling against these enforced roles, it was taken for granted that women existed as mothers and wives, a presumption that was both divinely ordained and thus a natural duty. The developing democracy rested on man as the giver or provider and women as the enabler or nurturer. Women were more or less property of the husband with the belief in the sacred mother-child bond and the woman’s natural instinct for child rearing. The physical prowess of the male (imagined or otherwise) determined that the “hunter-gatherer” would do just that.

The inability of the woman to provide for herself was also directly related to the male holding the reins of financial power which precluded any property rights or ability to earn for women. That being so, in early England and America up to the mid-1800s, fathers had sole rights to custody, because custody was closely tied to inheritance and property law.[1]  Several early feminist activists of the day, most notably English-born Caroline Norton fought to have these ruling turned in favour of women after being deprived of her own children in the aftermath of divorce. [2] That changed when the legal principle of the Tender Years Doctrine automatically gave rights to mothers based on what was seen as developmentally sensitive years of 13 and under.

Custody rights were shaped by these gender precepts: the love and emotional support of the mother and the more distant, intellectual, financial provision of the father. These gender roles were sacrosanct in society and in law. Upon the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, the nuclear family was in the process of disintegrating due in part, to fathers having to go further afield to locate work opportunities. The British Empire was the hub of this economic and capitalist revolution which would have serious repercussions for family and community.

Although initially new wealth was created for Western European peasantry due to outsourcing by emerging companies, this soon changed. The majority of middle and working class women worked from home. The American economy for example, relied a great deal on home businesses such as woodwork and textiles. With centralisation came disenfranchisement and disconnection from communities built on these crafts and skills intimately connected with an understanding of the land. Factories replaced a network of cottages industries largely dominated by women and their highly skilled handcrafts. The home traditionally carried by women was replaced with mass production. Women’s domestic duties rapidly disappeared so that rearing children for the majority became their only destiny. Single mothers and young women often had to move into boarding houses close to factories with the consequent lack of sanitation and poorly paid wages that accompanied such a move.

In summary, the gender roles became increasingly defined by economic constraints where the male breadwinners were the benefactors of monetary power. This meant that fathers’ capacity to nurture their children from the masculine polarity was further reduced at the same time the mothers’ foundation for community and cottage industry income was removed.

When set against custody decisions the differences became stark. Since women’s only validation for their existence was now from the maternal role it was seen as horribly cruel to deny the mother what was after all seen as a biological and thus a fundamental right due to this new social prison. The father however, was forced to provide economically for his children without ever having rights to see them. Emotional bonds of mother and child were reinforced while the father’s presence became a purely financial consideration.

Through no fault of his own and from the causes of macro-social forces rather than intrinsic gender pre-dispositions, fathers’ rights in custody battles became increasingly fractured due to the obvious fact that women were indeed spending much more time with their children and thus having the advantage when questioned by the judge regarding “quality time”. By the late 20th century very few fathers now retained children in custody trials. [3]

The idea that the mothers had an unassailable right to child custody was now firmly entrenched in the legal system. But what made this doubly unfair that with the onset of the World War and its closure, women had rightly become wage earners in their own right therefore taking on the male role as provider and nurturer. [4]  Prevailing views cemented these stereotypes by presuming that unless women were financially destitute and compelled to work it was unnatural and morally wrong, whereas if the man’s career ambitions evolved to the total exclusion of the family unit, functioning as a hotel to be fed and watered, this was somehow understandable and correct, despite the fact that many men so desperately wanted a relationship with the children. At this stage, socio-cultural dictates in general were making it difficult for men to be emotionally in touch with their feelings at all, let alone to express a natural desire that true shared parenting was perhaps healthy and vitally important.

By the 1950s the legal maxim in custody battles was “the best interests of the child” which in practice seldom worked out that way. This did not alter the mythology of women as automatically the best bet for custody regardless of the evidence or circumstances. For decades an almost subconscious aversion to awarding rights to the father developed in the minds of many judges as a matter of principle. Furthermore, large economic shifts in the 1960s, ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s and throughout the chaos of the 2000’s have clearly placed men in general at a disadvantage regarding accessibility rights during and after divorce proceedings.

Large scale fragmentation of the family unit has unequivocally taken place due to the many factors already discussed in this series so far, most obviously due to globalisation as a euphemism of international corporatism and its doctrine of ever greater centralised consumption devoid of social and ecological values. As a consequence, the resulting economic disparity between men and women – while taking account of the many exceptions to the rule – has placed the onus on men to uphold an impossible and singular financial standard usually on a single income and in a highly volatile and shifting global economic market place. Technology and automation is overseeing the demise of traditional work connected to the land. The 9-5 working day with the feminist agenda for gender equality will offer needed rights to mothers but also exacerbate another problem.

A painful and recurring irony has arrived that indicates the divide and rule scenario in operation so favoured of think tanks, the Empire’s intellectual vanguard of change. The dichotomy of men and women’s rights is increasingly reversed in the affluent Western world. Where financial solvency was praised as vital for the support of the family it is now seen as an impediment to proper family cohesion and parenting. Another bizarre twist has taken place. While many women have played the game of “success” under the push for illusory equal rights and juggled the family life with a corporate career; headed companies and donned the mask of the capitalist entrepreneur or boss,  in many cases women are repeating the exact same reasons that men lost their custody battles: by being distant from the family and not participating in “quality parenting.” Now that women have got what men had in the corporate world they too are being penalised for precisely the same reasons. [5]

While some men stay at home and care for the children the gender stereotypes remain. Men are not “house-husbands” they are shirking their manly responsibilities or just “unemployed”. Yet women who work still retain both roles and then complain when it becomes too demanding. The net result is a constant dichotomy that flips between genders creating and perpetuating multiple levels of tension.

In custody cases successful career women have to justify their work role by not assuming the traditional role of mother love. Whereas men the “hunter-gatherers” are forced to justify why they cannot support their family financially and are thereby somehow deficient of masculine genes. This is not a gender issue and never has been. What this represents – as in so many of the issues we have addressed so far – is an issue of reductive economics and the international financial architecture that has been built on exploitation of such depth and profundity that it is little wonder that it has ultimately defined who we are. Behind this wholly exploitative framework is the psychopathic mind that delights in such obfuscation and confusion. These anti-human ways of being allow it to be hidden from scrutiny. It is a shocking indictment of our society that the key benefactor of this descent will continue to be the wealthy Elite.

It is obvious that such a state of affairs does not just happen but results from an integration of Christian ethics with the organisation of Roman legal systems which were progressively adapted into our Western institutions. The human cruelties, indifferences and inconsistencies were also incorporated and laid the groundwork from one Pathocratic Empire to another. Łobaczewski talked about this “Western civilization” and how its degeneration was due to a “serious deficiency” in recognising the signs of decay which inevitably led to evil consequences. This was  due to the simplistic appraisal of human psychology upon which the societal structures of law, justice and philosophy were based. The insufficient resistance to evil was easily taken advantage of due to the “enormous gap between formal or legal thought and psychological reality.” [6] And so it is. We are still sourcing our knowledge and understanding from a juvenile dictionary and total lack of comprehension which has locked in economics, law, justice and just about every other domain in society. Is it any wonder that we are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance concerning the nature and direction our societies are taking?

It is the knowledge that we have an inherited the workings of societies “insufficiently resistant to evil” that can inform our future thoughts and actions on this issue. It will require that we become cognizant of how ponerogenesis plays out in our own lives and how we can best avoid its traps. Learning to see how we can understand this process will mean whether or not we become the scapegoats of this degeneration or the pioneers of its eventual dissolution.

Is gender equality a possibility? It depends on society’s current enforced assumptions about our roles. Equal opportunities cannot be approached when the very fundamentals of our socio-economic systems are skewed. Equal opportunities to be treated civilly and with respect cover both genders. Unfortunately, much as feminists would rail at the statement: men and women ARE fundamentally different – physiologically, neurologically and how we process reality – as a thousand studies have underscored time and again. So, while our conception of gender roles have indeed been enforced and expected, there are natural even timeless differences of masculine and feminine which only truly work when they meet in the middle to create that third force. It is the integration of the dualities while retaining differences which alter reality for the better rather than seeking to displace, out-do or gain ascendency over the other, or even worse to claim “rights” as though women in the Western world are somehow separate from the inculcated pathology of which we are ALL apart.

The inherent assumptions of those in positions of power which mean that women are seen as objects and where they are not deemed worthy of attaining the CEO position does happen. Similarly, men can be ridiculed for being stay-at-home dads or a job as a nurse. The problem is, within these positions are also wider implications denoting much more than mere ignorance or bigotry. It may be that the kind of roles that moderate feminists wish to see cannot be observed in the type of social reality we have right now, for the reasons so far given in this series.

Does that mean we don’t press for change? Or course not, but until we see that such urging of women’s rights without due awareness of ponerology which has our Western societies comprehensively in its palm means that much of the core reasons for seeking gender equality will be as authentic as Live Aid.  This is a problem not of female rights against male rights. It is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue against the PSYCHOPATH. All else derives from this. One talks of gender equality immediately assuming that men are not expressing the exact same victimhood. And this where so often white, middle-class, Western female entitlement arrives in much the same way as Jewish ethnocentrism and the reflex assumption from African-Americans that slavery by white traders of the past still demand recompense.

Until we embrace the fact that we are ALL victims of a centuries old evil that resides both in concrete reality and the metaphysics of myths and imagination within our own hearts we will never be free. We must take a grand, bird’s eye view of humanity which has in the modern era all the tools necessary to forge a new awareness of the multitude of horrors we have collectively suffered over lifetimes. That means truly joining together against a common foe and defending ourselves against it. Not by wasting energy on gender issues and spectres of the past. The only thing that will change these issues is SEEING who is stirring the pot of constant division and conflict. That does not mean doing nothing but it does imply that we choose our battle very, VERY wisely.


Notes
[1] Women and the Law of Property in Early America by Marylynn Salmon, Published by UNC Press Books, 1989 | ISBN 0807842443, 9780807842447.
[2] Family Life in the Nineteenth Century, 1789–1913: The History of the European family. Volume 2. By David I. Kertzer, Yale University Press, 2002.
[3] Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Legal System  By Edith Greene, Kirk Heilbrun, Cengage Learning, 2010. 049581301X, 9780495813019.
[4] ‘The Mother-Love Myth: The Effect of the Provider-Nurturer Dichotomy in Custody Cases’ by Kalie Caetano The Macalester Review: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 2.
[5] More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce’By Lisa Belkin, New York Times, November 17, 2009.
[6] op. cit. Lobaczewski; (p. 48)

Crowd Control I

By M.K. Styllinski

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a  profoundly sick society.”

– Krishnamurti



In this post I want to offer some further examples on just how complex and confused our ideas of sexuality, sexual offences and the law has come to be, primarily due to our lack of awareness of ponerology and the development of our Official Culture.

A recent Telegraph report has highlighted the kind of ridiculous mindset so prevalent in US lawmakers. Some of these wise men and women in the State of Virginia:  “… want to make oral sex illegal for teens aged 15-17, although it’s still legal for two teens aged between 15-17 to have vaginal sex with each other.”

I kid you not.

As journalist Rebecca Holman rightly points out: “If you ban oral sex, what else will these teenagers do with their time? Set fire to bins? Do poppers? Shoot things with air rifles? HAVE ‘ACTUAL’ SEX? All of the above?”

There continues to be considerable controversy in the West as to what denotes a balanced and natural sexual expression for children. With our culture becoming increasingly sexualised on the one hand (Kinseyian programming) and made to feel dirty and deviant on the other (fundamentalist religious conservatism) it is little wonder that children and young adults are becoming confused and disoriented.  In any given case, there are complex interplay of forces which define the descent into abuse.  Translating new insights from psychology and social science and transforming them into practical tools for educational and treatment practices are proving challenging to implement. The battle between those who advocate what amounts to a form of anti-sexuality clashes with the those who posit a pervasive sexualisation of women AND men. This is producing an almost irreversible tension in the minds of children. The issues they raise are valid in each camp but they are politicised, thus producing more noise rather than true solutions.

Those that advocate the extreme curtailment of sexual freedom are offering children repression, conformity and far too strict a definition of what is sexually “appropriate.” This fear-based and reflexive wish to white-wash the child into a perfect angelic purity serves to warp the natural growth of the child’s sensual curiosity and inquisitiveness. Over in the United States, the city of San Diego is a case in point. Though instances of abuse clearly exist, it seems the cases where the authorities got it hopelessly wrong are also common:

In 1992, a major grand jury investigation found the county’s child welfare agencies and juvenile courts to be ‘a system out of control,’ so keen on protecting children from predation that it took hundreds of them away from their parents on what turned out to be false charges. The report called for ‘profound change’ throughout the system. […] Teachers and social workers, undereducated in psychology and overtrained (often by law enforcers) in sexual abuse, tend to see sexual pathology and criminal exploitation in any situation that looks even remotely sexual. [1]

And this is a form of ponerisation in itself where paranoia sits next to very real abuse and a product of the exact same degeneration. For example, there is still resistance to the fact that as psychopathy rises to positions of power, and as society begins to exhibit symptoms of psychopathological inculcation it may follow that more sociopaths, narcissists and psychopaths will emerge in society as a whole.  The type of intervention that blends the law courts, mental health and psychological evaluations are too close to the needs of lawyers tuning in to the lucrative climate of sex-predator-paranoia. In many cases, the law is actually causing great harm to children for no other reasons of greed and material gain.

c-g05-eng

www.statcan.gc.ca/

c-g06-eng

The above statistics offered by the Canadian government in 2012 show that the highest police reported sexual offences per 100,000 and by age ranges from 13-15 years old with the highest age of victims of sexual offences at 14-15 years old. What is extraordinary in Canada at least, is the high rate of offences from females far outstripping males which may reflect the commensurate rise in narcissistic behaviour in young women and girls.

Over in the state of Texas, USA it is a similar story. While juvenile crime has gone down overall sexual assault has continue to rise according to statistics from 2007 – 2011. Yet how much of this is drawn from genuine pathology and / or the result of draconian laws and the blurred definitions as to what is a “sexual offence”?

628x471

Sex crimes by juvenile offenders are on the rise in Harris County,”by Cindy Horswell, Houston Chronicle, April 21, 2012.

While offering some welcome amendments, the UK’s Sexual Offences Act 2003 nevertheless incorporates new and draconian provisions on child pornography and prostitution. [3] Anyone asking a person under 18 to provide a “sexual service” for “payment” commits a crime and the child (those under 18) is classed as a “prostitute.” However, if an individual asks a person under 18 for a nude-photograph this will automatically be considered a criminal offence or “inciting child pornography”. This means that anyone under 18 and engaged in a relationship is legal, but when expressed physically with the use of a web-cam, they become criminals. All those under 18 of course, are deemed “children” which, when applied to the law, is unfair and dangerous to civil rights. The law is therefore, high on rhetoric but low on the practical realities of such a law.

Compare this UK jailing of a man along with his female accomplice, who raped a 12 week old baby. [4] The subsequent sentence reflected a clear deficit in the justice of the law where “life” meant that the perpetrator was eligible for parole in only six to eight years. We have to wonder why it is that the justice system seems to either favour the predator or to accuse and scapegoat the innocent, rarely finding the median between those two poles. Should genuine sexual predators find themselves with a silver spoon in their mouths then the likelihood that they will face prosecution and punishment becomes even less probable.

Protection is always afforded to the aristocracy and the upper classes of the British Establishment with favouritism filtering down to the outer rings. In one instance a judge give undue leniency to the Queen’s former choirmaster for a series of child sex attacks in the 1970s and 80s. He received five years meaning he would be out on good behaviour in a very short space of time, which indeed he is. [5] While this occurs in the UK, such disparities are far more extreme in the US.

Being caught urinating behind a tree, mooning, skinny dipping, masturbating, and passionate lovemaking and many other non-violent, victimless offences can make individuals sex criminalss and placed on the sex offenders register. A “doctor and nurse” game could now criminalise both US and UK children.  However, those that voice such concerns are either labelled paedophile apologists and tainted with an undue liberal reflex or are quite literally paedophile advocates! When criminalisation has broad generalisations and poorly defined legislation contained within it and where essential definitions are needed for each sexual crime, the inevitable result is that all sexual activity is seen as criminal. When we understand, in the real world, that much sexual activity involving children under the age of consent is consensual and experimental, the involvement of the law should not be necessary.

What the law does is to effectively criminalise young people under 16 who engage in sexual experimentation. Coercion is so often assumed in many cases. If a fifteen year old girl “forces” a 16 year old boy into having sexual relations, what then? What if they are genuinely “in love?” Is the boy to be prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register?  Apparently so.

One example from an American mother who wrote an open letter to former President George W. Bush, on an internet blog illustrated the crassness of current legislation which has yet to improve:

Dear George:

I am a mother of a sex offender, at least that is what they are calling it. My son did not rape, abuse, or force anyone. He had sex with a minor, who also wanted sex with him. I am not an educated female, but I do know the difference between forcing someone and consenting.

I do not Condone what my son did, it was wrong and he should be punished. My problem is this: he was sentenced to 30 yrs. to a violent prison. On his court papers it says it was a non-violent crime. So why is he in a violent prison? No one will give me the time of day. Also he has to register as a SO. [sex offender] […]

I would like to be alive when my son gets out.[6]

One of the most recent examples of this dangerously simplistic view of prosecution concerns 17 year old Genarlow Wilson who was convicted of Aggravated Child Molestation for a voluntary act of oral sex with another teenager at a New Year’s Eve party.  He was 17 and she was 15.  Genarlow,  a good student, athlete and with no criminal record not only received a sentence of eleven years but the disastrous label of “child molester” requiring him to be placed on the sex offender register for life. He was also black.

“ ‘Wilson maintained his innocence. ‘I know that it was consensual,’ he told ‘Primetime.’ ‘I wouldn’t went on with the acts if it wasn’t consensual. I’m not that kind of person. No means no.’”

“ ‘Five of the boys accepted plea deals, but Wilson — the only one without a police record — held out. ‘I knew Genarlow’s state of mind,’ said his attorney, Michael Mann. ‘He wasn’t going to prison willingly. He wasn’t going to plea to something in his mind he didn’t do.’” [7]

Such is the law in the State of Georgia where two teens can have intercourse which is counted as a misdemeanour but where oral sex is a felony carrying a minimum of 10 years in prison. If two teens are engaged in heavy petting, this could be felony of child molestation. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. For Wilson, whether the fifteen year old was willing or not, and the fact that he was only two years her senior, the law on child molestation had the last word. Was Wilson’s case yet another miscarriage of justice based on outdated laws favouring a religious puritanism?  A public outcry concerning the Wilson case was thought to have secured his release after serving four years. His sentence was deemed “dispropotionate” but the original conviction was unaltered. As a result of this case however, Georgia law is being reconsidered, though at the time of writing any formal legislation has yet to materialise.

It has not helped a 26-year-old college student on federal disability, who has been on the sex offender’s registry for a decade after a being charged over 10th grade fellatio. Despite the fact that it is no longer a crime in Georgia she and her husband have had to be moved on by Harlem police under sex offences law that prohibits “offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or other place where children congregate.”

Careless and ill-considered, perhaps, but criminal? This woman was ordered to leave her legally bought home or face arrest:

Before she and her husband of six years bought the house, she says, they made sure the property was far enough away from a public park down the street. What the Whitakers didn’t realize was that a nearby church was operating a small day-care center. As a result, they’ve had to move into a trailer park across the county line. They’re sharing a two-bedroom single-wide with Whitaker’s brother-in-law and his teenage daughter.‘We’re paying a mortgage for my cat to live here,’ she says of the house she and her husband have had to leave behind. When she stops by to check on the property or do laundry, she says, her neighbors routinely call the cops, who drop by to make sure she isn’t trying to move back in.

Now, Georgia’s strict new sex-offender law — signed by Gov. Sonny Perdue in April but delayed in federal court before it could take effect July 1 — could force Whitaker out of the trailer park as well, leaving her with few options for living anywhere in the state. Under a nebulous loitering provision in the new law, she might not even be allowed to go to church. [8]

Judgments concerning adult sex offenders which are then applied to children and often careless adults alike can represent a dangerous misunderstanding of the nature of sexuality. For children, while the mimicking and simulation of T.V. and magazine images and messages may be an indication of a premature sexual induction that may lead to so called unwarranted behaviour towards other children, it should not immediately be confused with pathology or abuse. Yet this is exactly what is happening in many instances. This is more likely an indication of an adult prurience projected onto the child who may actually ensure that such explorations do become neurotic, obsessive or worse.

At the same time, psychopathic children could be a reality where no amount of rehabilitation is ever going to work. The very real indications that conviction rates of child molesters in the UK for example, are frighteningly low, the extreme difficulties in detecting the abuse of under-fives and the general underreporting of incidences, all suggest that we are still operating between two extremes.

What is appears to be true is a steady rise in sexual offences in the United States, Canada and certain European countries. The true statistics may be extremely difficult to ascertain since we have draconian, repressive laws operating alongside psycho-social and technology influences further mixed with the social engineering of oversexualisation and the anti-sexuality reflex of moral panic. What is certain is that children are as increasingly confused and lost as adults when it comes to healthy sexual identity.panic_button_1600_clrMoral Panics and Neural Circuits

The question of “moral panic” was first coined by British sociologist Stanley Cohen from his study of UK mods and rockers during the 1970s. He used this term to define the role of media and deviant behaviour which fed on peoples’ already sensitive fears of the unknown, still raw from economic hardship. The threat from this perceived deviancy was thereby exaggerated, fuelling unrest. Cohen defined this collective behaviour as:

“A condition, episode, person or group emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnosis and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes visible.”  [9]

A recent UK Home office report found that “a lack of intimacy and high levels of loneliness” were common factors in the profiles of the vast majority of sex offenders, similar to the high level of neglected children in the UK and abroad. [10] Far from dealing with the dark and hidden aspects of our collective shadows we have found new ways to limit reality and thus our own understanding by creating new demons, whether they are paedophiles or terrorists.

Both exist, but not in the ways that governments and their agencies would like us to think. Just as anti-sexuality and puritanical beliefs clash with overt sexualisation, so too the divisions between those who promote moral panic as opposed to finding out the root sources of abuse and sexual crime.

Sarah Payne’s law in the UK and Megan’s law in the US both seek to alert the public about the whereabouts of the sex offender in your town or village under the guise of freedom and protection. [11] Though it seems logical that we should all be alerted to the presence of paedophiles and child killers in our neighbourhoods evidence suggests that further isolating and excluding the offender, – child molester or not – and reinforcing this identity through stigmatisation, naturally drives such people underground, continuing the likelihood of long-term child abuse or other related crimes.

The question of such moral panics disappearing is dependent on how useful their presence may be. Self-appointed vanguards of this moral imperative would love to believe they are upholding the sanctity of society as they perceive it. It is more likely that they are merely cogs in the wheel of a purposely initiated “panic” that is tailored towards a pre-designed conclusion. The witch hunts of 17th Europe; the trials of the Spanish Inquisition; the Nazi programs of genocide are testament to the ease by which ponerisation of an idea then “injected” into the populace can be initiated.

The primary mode of panic thus adopted appears to have been the “Elite-engineered” model, [12] with other secondary models under its influence. We can include the Grass Roots model of a dissatisfied society achieving catharsis through retribution and the Interest Group model made up of advocates, activists, interests groups and think-tanks seeking to bring awareness to the “moral evils” in society. These latter forces work in tandem with each other come up against the infinitely more knowledgeable core of Elite control, the top tiers of which have had the populace under a microscope for a considerable length of time. These “positive” forces for change can thus be easily manipulated despite an increasing awareness.

When the action of negative feedback is excluded from contemporary discourse concerning abuse and the nature of the child molester, the obvious outcome is a headlong rush to reaction without any understanding of the consequences. Judgments about whether one is a child molester, a terrorist, mentally ill, or a dissident, it is becoming the province of authorities which are tied to regressive world-views and corrupt political interests. Moral panics lead to various individuals and groups becoming scapegoats for a host of inner demons the history of which is long and rich, whether they are the “white trash” of nomadic America or the Irish gypsies on the outskirts of London. When crude moral indignation surfaces with clamours for “justice,” scapegoating always emerges from its artificial womb.

KF987881_942long

Quite apart from religious absolutism, moral panics were often whipped up by the authorities for political or monetary gain. Women were the primary targets. | Photo credit: Witch Hunt Exhibition, Vestry House Museum March 2012

The more horrific and depraved the crime, the easier it can be to direct the fear and revulsion towards a group or individual and the solution provided by the Establishment to enact laws or justify social engineering. The reaction of populations against the real or imagined threat of sexual predators creates the vortex to which all “deviance” or resistance is drawn. Behind this chaos lie select members in power for whom such confusion is ripe for manipulation. The reaction seems to follow a pattern whereby those least able to defend themselves are targeted such as ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. Sexual offenders in the US, under the present laws, many of whom have placed on the register as dangerous sex offenders, may have only committed relatively minor offences. This serves to bypass the real culprits who were responsible for the crimes.

Medical and health authorities are becoming the next stage in the law and justice treadmill, where dissent and deviancy are judged to be “abnormal” or threatening, the hatred of the paedophile becomes a microcosm of bigotry and intolerance then applied to many other “deviant” groupings. There is a medicalization of social control where mental illness, ethics and political bias merge. That is not to say that we must embrace deviancy that is clearly harmful to the child as outlined in the previous chapter. There must be the clearest definitions possible so as to maintain the purest objectivity in a world of full of murky disinformation.

While the “moral panic” meme does have validity it also acts to mask deeper social problems that lie festering at the roots. Social constructivist solutions are focused on how and why these issues become defined at particular historical junctures but they neglect the overall synthesis of why these social problems appear in the first place and are singled out for public exposure. Ponerisation operates on precisely these gaps in awareness, where sophisticated “twists” on truth discombobulate individuals and groupings perceived as threatening to the status quo. The tide of emotional rage becomes paramount and reasoning leaves by the back door, held open by the authorities. For instance, the multiple strands of warring interests groups exclude the possibility that in some cases there is unwarranted panic about Satanism and ritual abuse whilst in other instances it has been proven exist. Centralisation and bureaucracy tends to quash lateral thinking and multi-disciplinary approaches.

The technique of scapegoating comprehensively pervades the media, the judiciary and law enforcement. Though there are numerous cases of justified sentencing of child molesters and rapists, there is also a tragic quota of those wrongfully accused. If the individual is guilty, a remorseless witch hunt results in a regression towards vigilantism and the herd mentality, often destroying all that goes before it. The net result, (so beneficial to the Establishment), leaves civil society with a situation far worse than the one that preceded it. Miscarriages of justice are intermingled with genuine abuse all of which produces an exponential footprint of trauma that engulfs communities and feeds media sensationalism.

Examples of high profile ritual or familial abuse claims came pouring in from around the world during the late nineties and early 2000’s including the Orkney Islands, the Pitcairn Islands, the Isle of Lewis, Rochdale and Cleveland cases of sexual abuse in the UK and the Christchurch Crèche case in New Zealand; the separate cases of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Martensville ritual abuse, the Shieldfield child abuse scandal in the US and several others. It is precisely because the abuse was present that the methods used by police and the judiciary ensured that innocent men and women took the fall for predators ensconced in the community and with links to those in wider positions of power.

 


*  For an instructive look at the reality of child psychopaths and the havoc they can cause have a look at the film Joshua (2007) and We need to talk about Kevin (2011). These are extreme cases admittedly, but the core disturbances they cause are very real.

Notes

[1] p.34; Levine, Judith; Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, University of Minnesota Press (2002).
[2] Severe Attachment Disorder in Childhood – A Guide to Practical Therapy by Dr. Niels Peter Rygaard authorized by D.P.A., Aarhus C, Denmark Translated from N. P. Rygaard, L’enfant abandonn6. Guide de traitement des troubles de I’attachement. 2005; Printed in Austria by SpringerWien New York. | ISBN-10 3-211-29705-7.
[3] Sexual Offences Act 2003 Elizabeth II. Chapter 42, Great Britain – “An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts Royal assent, 20th November 2003. Explanatory notes have been produced to assist in the understanding of this Act and are available separately (ISBN 0105642037) Reprinted incorporating corrections, January 2004; reprinted May 2004.” TSO The Stationary Office: http://www.tso.co.uk/
[4] “Babysitter raped 12-week-old as girlfriend took photographs,” The Times, January 11, 2006.
[5] “Child abuse sentence ‘disgusting’ BBC News, 27 August, 2004.
[6] ‘Mother of Sex Offender’ by “Dianne,” Age 57, Columbia, SC. http://www.deargeorgeletters.blogspot.com/
[7] ‘Outrage after Teen Gets 10 Years for Oral Sex with Girl’ ABC News February 7th 2006, to find out more about Genarlow Wilson’s appeal, visit http://www.wilsonappeal.com.
[8] ‘Life in the shadows’ – Now facing a legal challenge, Georgia’s war on sex offenders could punish minor violators while failing to focus on the worst ones By Scott Henry, July 19, 2006.
[9] p.9; Folk Devils and Moral Panics the Creation of the Mods and Rockers by Stanley Cohen, 1973, published by Paladin.
[10] Research and Development Statistics (RDS)Home Office UK, Crime in England and Wales, 2004/2005 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
[11] ‘Megan’s Law,’ was passed after seven year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a paroled convict who had moved onto her street in New Jersey in 1994. Photos and addresses of all high-risk, Class 3 sex offenders are to be posted on the Internet.
[12] “Moral Panics and the Social Construction of Deviant Behavior: A Theory and Application to the Case of Child Ritual Abuse”, by Jeffrey S. Victor, Social Perspectives Autumn 1998.

Save