Newest Members
Won'tGiveUp, sillyputty, Pytbull, manipulated, donmarks
12383 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
Alan Fountain (52), blindpet (31), egoror (49), Midas (33), uwa (78)
Who's Online
1 registered (BraveFalcon), 25 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12383 Members
74 Forums
63648 Topics
444519 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#402563 - 07/04/12 08:19 PM Speaking in Tongues
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
I'm going to present an overview of an ongoing child sexual molestation case in a bit. First though I need to provide some background to explain why I am interested in this.

I am trying to advance the position that their should be financial redress for child abuse perpetrated by parents. I'm going even further than this, I'm saying that the abuse standard sets the bar too high. I say that their should be redress any time a child is being used. By this I mean any time parents are using a child in order to gain adult identity, social legitimacy, or to keep a marriage together. What is the test for this? I say that it should be simply that there is animosity.

So in doing this I am intentionally attacking the self-reliance ethic. People say things like, "Your parents don't own you anything", "It's their money", and "You have to rely on yourself". I do not agree with any of this. I have had to endure harsh online treatment over this, but I still don't agree. I say that all it amounts to is an exoneration scheme for parents who have themselves acted in Bad Faith.

No, I don't equate this with severe abuse cases, but I still say that it is important that the parents be penalized and the child vindicated. Further, I feel that most of the exploitation of children is legitimated by the self-reliance ethic. So I am opposed to this and opposed to all the ways it plays out in our ethics, economics, and legal system.

I say that children should have rights, and these include rights to economic and social support independent of the family. When someone has used a child as property, even had a child for this reason, then they should be penalized and the child compensated and vindicated.

As such I have been trying to locate Comrades, those who share similar views and are working to advance them. In particular I want to know of attorneys who are trying to find ways of advancing such an agenda.

At a minimum I say that disinheritance should be prohibited. My understanding of this is that in Europe it is this way already. But I don't know this.

Here is a law firm in Vancouver which is working to establish the idea that family dysfunction is cause for litigation.
http://www.disinherited.com/article/dysfunctional-families

In an effort to pursue this and learn of works going on, I have interacted with those fighting for justice in the area of Catholic Clergy Sexual Abuse. I have learned of some of the attorneys involved and have talked with activists. As I see it, clergy abuse and family abuse are closely related, as the Catholic Church seems to do little more than promote the Good Family, and this alone constitutes child exploitation. I have found though that the Clergy Abuse activists have little to contribute to what I want to advance, and are made very uncomfortable by the subject.

So I learned of a paternal molestation case on going, where I casually know both parents. Of particular importance to me is the black sheeping of this eldest daughter. I finally got the chance to read the file. First, it is a religious fundamentalist family. Second, the father earns his living as a motivational speaker. Third, I only know about it because the father confided in me. What he told me matches with what it says in the case file.

Their church is something which I find deeply disturbing, a kind of insanity. They also hold motivational events in their church. So just issues one and two are for me cause for concern about the family, and I believe their 5 children should have de-programming services offered to them.

Item three is important because I have had misgivings about investigating something told to me in confidence. But there is an over riding concern here for me. I see myself as an activist, or want to be activist in this area. What the father told me was that all of this is caused by this eldest daughter. He blames her own history of drugs, alcohol, and promiscuity as being the whole reason this case exists. He says that she turned the two younger girls against him. His defense attorneys have submitted big reports trying to disqualify police video recordings of interviews. But they also claim that this daughter hates her father, and that some how this makes their client innocent.

Well, "hates her father" is my turf. That is, I say that animosity is evidence of the child having been used, exploited, and is by itself cause for compensation.

I cannot judge the criminal charges, but I heard the black sheeping myself.

I read this case and I see that it will proceed. It is not clear to me that there ever will be a civil case for the children to claim financial compensation.

I am reading an excellent book by Louise Armstrong, Rocking the Cradle of Sexual Politics, What Happened When Women Said Incest. She shows how most of the responses still blame the victims and she also claims that male incest is still being treated like a prerogative. So she sees the solution as having to involve political action. I agree with her and I am learning.

Let me anticipate one more objection, the claim that I might be intruding in something. Court cases and their files are public information. Anyone in the world who wants to can go to the court house and read the file, and if they wish to, sit in on the trial. I probably won't sit in on the trial because I don't have anything to add to it. But I am interested in their being civil redress. As all of this is a matter of politics, it has to be handled publicly.

So I've finally gotten to read the case file. I know I've been too long on the periphery of the legal system when I recognize the names of all of the police officers, the judge, and the prosecutor. Some of these people I have had personal dealings with. When I go to the court house, I recognize prosecutors and defense attorneys. Some of them must recognize me.

Of particular note in this case is that they used a different police detective to interview each family member. I recognize this kiddie room the police have set up. No, its not the bare light bulb hanging from the ceiling. It has plush carpeting, a sofa and coffee table, and there are lots of stuffed animals and toys.

The lead police detective and principle author of the report is someone I met 20 years ago. I was particularly taken with his abilities in dealing with different sorts of people and sensitive situations. He tried to diffuse racial prejudice and fear of gangs. He extended himself to talk an elderly woman into not accepting back a man who was using her. This had been a man who I also found to be completely unacceptable in some of his doings. I also extended myself to try and persuade the woman not to accept him back. This young officer educated many people in a positive way about police. Since, I've noticed his name on things from time to time. Now I see that he is the lead detective in this molestation case.

So let me lay out some of the parameters. The youngest of the three girls somehow ended up talking to a councilor at some sort of a youth center. Well, in times past they didn't have such youth centers or such councilors. This councilor was just a young intern, someone who probably wouldn't want to extend herself very far.

Well, this 8th grade girl talked about this and that, and said much about what her father had been doing with the eldest daughter.

In times past this would have just been dismissed. Here it was not. This young intern did exactly what the law requires. She wrote it up and faxed it to Police and Child Protective Services.

Things are not as they used to be.

Now this eldest daughter no longer lived with her parents and sisters. She lived in a different city. But soon Police were in contact with her and CPS was making a well being check on the family. What would follow would be the police doing careful interviews of everyone separately, and using different police officers to handle each family member.

So as you can see, so far I am liking this very much!

I'm going now to do my best to present this in as tactful a way as possible. I don't have to be as explicit as the police report is.

*********************************************************************************************
WARNING, GRAPHIC SEXUAL MOLESTATION INFORMATION
*********************************************************************************************

Most of this pertains to what the father had been doing with the eldest daughter from when she was age 8 until age 16. At age 16 I think she found someway to get out or something. Not sure.

He was fondling her all over, on a regular basis. Often it was in the context of giving her a massage in her underwear. He also referred to it as the "tickling game". She says this was done many hundreds of times. She did not feel that she could refuse. She would just try to keep her legs together to minimize it.

Once he directed her to change into her swimming suit for a "new game". This new game involved the use of string, beads, feathers, and also a serrated steak knife.

He has admitted to all of this. The mother has admitted to knowledge of this as well.

This guy has manic mood swings. He accepts a psychiatric diagnosis. When he has these swings he is known to often be grabbing at the girls, touching them all places. Sometimes he apologizes the next day.

He is always watching them dress and undress. He says to them, "Hey its okay, I'm your dad."

The youngest girl described him as "creepy".

When the eldest girl was 16 they took to strip searching her. This was led by the father, with the mother standing right there. They were concerned about her smuggling drugs in and out of the house, probably marijuana. This searching also included looking under the sanitary napkin stuck with adhesive to her underpants. This so angered her that she threw her underpants at her father. The mother and father have admitted to this strip searching and have tired to justify it.

********************************************************************
CONCLUSION
********************************************************************

When police came for him, he was in his car and had turned the ignition on. Police blocked his car. When they were putting the bracelets on him, the wife lamented that he is their only source of income ( they live quite well ) and speaking of the eldest daughter's upcoming wedding, "Who will walk her down the aisle?"

Police did not have to include these statements of the wife in their report, but I'm glad that they did.

This man has a spotless record. I've checked it myself. His only income is from motivational speaking and from his "coaching" clients.

He has been charged with 6 felonies. These address that fact that the children were in his care, that this was a repeat practice, and that there was some physical coercion involved, and recognition of their young ages. If convicted on all counts the maximum sentence could exceed 50 years.

Since he has been out on $500k bail, and he has paid $25k to an extremely high power law firm which specializes in sex crime defense. They lead their promotionals with talk of child sex abuse cases. They have been extremely busy trying to sink this case before it can get to a jury. They have already been able to delay it for 2 years. Usually case files don't have much except the police report before they go to trial. This law firm writes big inch thick glossy reports saying that the digital video recording evidence is bad. So the file is about 5 inches thick already.

The eldest daughter helped to get the two younger ones removed and then placed into her care. Since a married couple has been designated as their legal guardians.

The mother has been doing the leg work for this law firm. That is, she is the one who serves the DA's office with all the motions for delay and additional discovery.

The replies are written in the name of the elected DA, and authored by a prosecutor who seems specialized in these sorts of issues. The man who will be prosecuting at trial is merciless and experienced in child sex abuse crimes. The judge is someone who will have no sympathy for such a defendant. Neither of them will be intimidated by what to me seem like bullying tactics coming from this law firm.

The wife spends her time painting an elaborate mural on the walls of their church's kiddie room. I know of this case because the father confided it to me.

He blames the eldest daughter and her own problems with sex, drugs, and alcohol. The high power law firm presents pretty much the same narrative.

What I have heard from the church members is that they blame the Police Dept for making a case where there should be none.


Enough for now.

People will be reading this who have grown up in different decades and who live in different countries, where practices may be different. Before I say what my emotional reaction is to all of this, I am interested to hear what others think.

BO

( all contentious links expunged )
http://freedomtoexpress.freeforums.org/

Louise Armstrong
Rocking the Cradle of Sexual Politics, What Happened When Women Said Incest
_________________________
Becoming Other
Exploited Children United

Top
#402650 - 07/05/12 04:43 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
scottyg Offline


Registered: 06/26/12
Posts: 253
Loc: Seattle
uhh.. could I get a digest?
_________________________
I've got a bike you can ride it if you like.
Its got a basket, a bell that rings
And many other things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could -but I've borrowed it.

Top
#402657 - 07/05/12 05:55 PM . [Re: Becoming Other]
Life's A Dream Offline


Registered: 08/25/11
Posts: 886
Loc: Bouvet Island
.


Edited by Life's A Dream (01/12/13 09:49 PM)

Top
#403646 - 07/14/12 07:21 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Life's a Dream,

Thank you for sharing that. I am sorry that such things are in the background of your father and that you have had to be exposed to the enduring aspects of such a legacy.

I don't support the concept of "dysfunctional family", as this is still based on the idea that there is some sort of "normal family" and so it amounts to reification. That is, one is worshiping the Good Family.

Instead I talk about exploitation and Bad Faith. Someone is living in Bad Faith when they have other choices, but decline to admit it. This statement from your paternal grandfather is a prime example of that, "I have to love you, but I don't have to like you."

FWIW, when I was about 3yo, still not exploring outside the house by myself, my father walked me to a school playground about two blocks away. Then he said, "I could leave you here." I asked him why, and he said, "Because I could." I was terrified. After that I never felt secure around my father again. Even to this day I can still feel that fear of him and a need to please him. As I look back over the decades and into what remained of my childhood, I can see that this rejection from him has shaped all of my interactions with him, and really shaped my entire life.

If a statement like this was just an aberration, reflective of a poor choice of words on his part, or just my own misunderstanding of him, then his real feelings would have been obvious and the misunderstanding corrected. But no, what he said was an accurate expression of how he really felt, and that has never changed.

I could say that such a parent should burn in Hell for all eternity. But the fact is, he already burns during this lifetime. Problem is, he is still able to hurt others along the way, and he does so, and he thinks he is right. I don't see that anything will ever change until their is redress, until parents are held responsible whenever they have used a child.

Some years later he would say that I am his pet. I questioned this, and again he just responded by affirming that it is true. He meant that I was like a dog or a cat.

Now of course this was when my mother was not around. She would not let him say things like that and would not say such herself. But still, what she actually felt was not that much different. For her, having children and keeping up the appearance of a Good Family were obligations.

What I am talking about, and what I read in your share, are children being used, exploited.

My own interest here is in finding ways to seek legal redress. I say that if a child has been used, then the parents are responsible. In practice what this should mean is that they have to pay. That is, they cannot exit with money or assets. They used a child, so they should be pauperized.

The kind of economically and socially isolated family of the age of industrial capitalism is most certainly a strange entity. While some people may think its just fine, if a child has been exploited, and if there is evidence for this in the resulting animosity, then the parents should be made to pay. They did not have to practice the family system. Nothing forced them to do this. So if they did and and there was harm, then they should pay. All sorts of things can be overlooked, but not the exploitation of a child.

I also notice in your story how central is the making of money. For my parents, holding onto money was important. The type of bad faith living I am focused on is a phenomenon of the middle class, that is people who have at least something.

What the Family System seems designed to do is to instill the Self-Reliance Ethic. It instills this, just like a primitive society might use hot coals or sharp stones to make scars.

So of course then, when people have a problem with the family, the usual response is simply to say, "Oh well, now I rely on myself." What this amounts to is exoneration of the parents, giving them a free pass, letting them claim that they did right. Self-Reliance is seen as the moral basis for even being able to make a criticism of one's parents.

Claiming redress on the other hand is much more difficult. One actually has to face the pain. One also has to see all the ways society tries to make such redress impossible.

What I want are lawyers who are trying to find ways to sue over an increasingly broad class of family issues. I want lawyers who are trying to find ways to make the US like many other countries by blocking disinheritance. In trying to find this, the going has been tough. Facing how we have been used is the hardest thing any of us can ever do. It is far easier to seek nirvana or enlightenment and. then to learn to live in the small corner of the world which is left when one has been so violated. The pain is incredible, all the more so when you see how society sanctions this exploitation of children and provides no redress. Rather it exonerates the parents and blames the child.

So what can one do? Well, most people are just like their parents. If they got beat over the head, the first thing they will do is have a child whom they can beat over the head. If tricky games where plaid with them, they will play games with a child of their own. If their parents read books which promoted parenthood, giving them license to use a child, then they will do the same. New books are published every few years. In my day it was Benjamin Spock. Now the new books deal with things like "attachment", "empathy", and "nurturing". Get the lingo down and you are authorized to make a child be responsible for your adult identity!

So the thing to look for is animosity. Sometimes for some reason you find people who have extreme animosity towards their parents. For some reason they are not in denial, and not 100% like their parents. When this is found, it is evidence that the parents have used the child, have lived in Bad Faith. The thing to do then is to sue.

You spoke about Pentecostals. Well what Pentecostalism is is simply a most extreme form of non-denominational Protestantism, where they take the Bible as a prescription. I have noticed that among Pentecostals that the most important aspect of faith is an external pronouncement of loyalty, "Are you a Christian? Are you Saved?" A very high percentage of the congregation will have had a serious history with drugs or alcohol. They tell their stories of Getting Saved.

So to me, the stories sound like the substituting one addiction for another. I am always telling them, "People who have been treated with dignity and respect and given the chance to develop and apply their abilities are not likely to become substance addicts. So I don't go along with this idea that alcoholics and addicts have some special need for redemption."

I have also noticed that in their families they always have a Black Sheep. They say things like, "So I have to wonder, did he/she really get Saved or not?" They even say this after the person has died at a very early age. I find it all to be extremely disturbing.

So what drew me to this molestation case was the strong animosity between this eldest daughter and her father, and the irrefutable confirmation of this in the father's black sheeping of her.

I am still a beginner here, and so I am not sure how I feel about the 50 year plus sentence that the state wants to give him. I just want him to get a smaller sentence, but then I want the money to go to the children.

I don't have anything to contribute to the criminal proceeding. But maybe I could get myself involved by finding a suitable lawyer who will get that money for the children. Maybe I could find some source of deprogramming from Born Again Christianity, and from a lot of other stuff, because these three daughters must be in need of emotional support to follow this through and destroy their father. Maybe this could be a place for me to finally be able to draw blood, and be the beginning of an ever expanding campaign to hold parents responsible for the ways they exploit children.

Vachss, Angela Doe case:
http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/excerpt_battle_11.html
_________________________
Becoming Other
Exploited Children United

Top
#403653 - 07/14/12 10:31 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
WriterKeith Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 951
Loc: southern California
My pentecostal father is the perp who raped and tortured my sister and me. As an adult I 'forgave' him and was a model son. He responded with passive-aggressive behavior as well as blatant and cruel mocking my CSA symptoms in public forums. When my mom died in 2000 my father unleashed an unholy vengeance on me, took an adult 'new son,' an outsider, into his home, and disinherited me. He went as far as having me and other close family members physically assaulted and encouraged the attacker to return and murder us.
He remains, in his mind, "a model Christian father and leader."

Truth be told, I really do not want anything in my home to remind me of him as it took so much work to rid my thoughts of him. I seldom think of him. Even more so, I do not want any money, not even coins, that could in any way credit him with my future financial achievements.

After HE severed the relationship, I worked too hard to sever the last remaining threads, nothing more than indoctrinated guilt and a sense of obligation to him. I have no feelings for him good or bad, just pity. I have no desire to be reconnected through an inheritance.

I gave up everything for him, including my retirement account, my job, my home, even my own bed, to tend to his needs and care for him, just to be turned out and discarded. I realize now that the religious indoctrination he used to control me left me no other alternative but to pay the price I paid. Not for him, but for my own mental and emotional freedom from him. Even my subconscious mind recognizes there is no way any truthful person could accuse me of being a bad son or having deserved what he did to me as an adult.

And, in the end, I purchased my own salvation.
_________________________
"A burned bridge can be a gift; it prevents us from returning to a place we should have never been."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JfvAPZGjds

Top
#403656 - 07/14/12 11:20 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: WriterKeith]
phoenix321 Offline


Registered: 09/26/11
Posts: 912
Loc: USA, FL
Keith, I know how you feel. My sperm donor hated me. God, the bible was used as a weapon against me from the beginning by my sperm donor. You know, you're going to hell (for doing anything that upset my abusive prick, religious nutjob sperm donor like just being alive), you're worthless, you don't deserve me (or god). The bible says all that about you, you little worthless piece of shit! My sperm donor didn't allow me to have friends, hated it if I was happy (didn't show it often) because his religious bullshit told him so. My mom, who is too religious--all she thinks about never anything else, backed him up or didn't say anything. I got beat in the name of god, cursed at god's name, etc., etc. I think my mom thinks I'm going to some hell (I don't believe in it and neither do the Jews by the way). "Well, now that you're judging..." is what I think. haha I don't judge anyone.

Therefore, I don't believe god cares and hate the christan version (hate the muslim version, too) because of it. God is indifferent. Acknowledge god exists (however you want) and take care of the planet and others. That's it. Sun, moon, stars makes the most sense to me. Bigger than me, far away from me, god's there somewhere.
_________________________
Phoenix

A guy opens the front door and sees a snail on his doorstep. He picks up the snail and throws it across the street in a neighbor's yard. A year later, the guy opens the front door and the same snail is on his doorstep. The snail says, "What the f*ck was that about?"

Top
#403811 - 07/16/12 04:12 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
WriterKeith Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 951
Loc: southern California
Phoenix, man oh man I hear ya. My father likened himself to Abraham who laid Isaac on the altar to sacrifice, and to God who actually went through with giving his son up for others.

The cliches of "turn it over to Jesus," and "just let the Lord have his way" are the worst responses a believer can say to me, along with discrediting my faith experience or my particular church denomination. On second thought, the worst comment made to me has been, "God had a purpose for you and He allowed that to happen to you so you could help others." What an evil and vile God that would be if that were true.

There are a million scripted excuses believers can conjur up, and in the end they only re-victimize and blame me, something against the core of the Christian faith.

That said, I respect the faith of others so it puzzles me why many people's faith is shaken when they hear my story and they respond with anger, cruel judgement, and blame.

When my father was dragging my sister and I to the place of torture each weekend, my sister would tell me to pray to Jesus to come and save us. Jesus never came. Not once. My only salvation was that I learned to render myself unconscious to endure the pain and blood.

I should include here that I do hold to a belief in the spiritual realm, and that my faith has deepened and broadened immensely in my life journey. My personal walk cannot be identified or confined within the simplistic constraints of any existing religious doctrine that has been penned. Now more than ever I believe no one "has it right," and therefore it's time to lay down the stones and help and learn from each other instead.

Maybe I can be dismissed as "a liberal bleeding heart" by some, but if so, I have earned the title with integrity and an awful lot of my own bloodshed both figuratively and literally in the life path behind me.

When someone has experienced cold water from a garden hose washing blood off his legs following the weekly torture and sex sessions by this father and his "buddy," then he can have a bit more ground to judge me.

It's a very complex subject, because at the same time, faith is often the only lifeline that saves a childhood or adult sexual abuse/assault survivor. And I believe that we all on this site, including atheists and agnostics, are a vital part of that lifeline. That's the reason so many of us log into chat and Healing Circles here with no other intention than to hope to reach out and encourage others.

Or, then again, maybe I'm "just another bleeding heart liberal?" blush
_________________________
"A burned bridge can be a gift; it prevents us from returning to a place we should have never been."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JfvAPZGjds

Top
#403999 - 07/18/12 07:57 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
This is a bit of a clarification I wrote for someone. I really want to know what people think about this molestation case.

Here I repeat my attempt to tactfully summarize what it says in the police report:

*********************************************************************************************
WARNING, GRAPHIC SEXUAL MOLESTATION INFORMATION
*********************************************************************************************

I'm going now to do my best to present this in as tactful a way as possible. I don't have to be as explicit as the police report is.

Most of this pertains to what the father had been doing with the eldest daughter from when she was age 8 until age 16. At age 16 I think she found someway to get out or something. Not sure.

He was fondling her all over, on a regular basis. Often it was in the context of giving her a massage in her underwear. He also referred to it as the "tickling game". She says this was done many hundreds of times. She did not feel that she could refuse. She would just try to keep her legs together to minimize it.

Once he directed her to change into her swimming suit for a "new game". This new game involved the use of string, beads, feathers, and also a serrated steak knife.

He has admitted to all of this. The mother has admitted to knowledge of this as well.

This guy has manic mood swings. He accepts a psychiatric diagnosis. When he has these swings he is known to often be grabbing at the girls, touching them all places. Sometimes he apologizes the next day.

He is always watching them dress and undress. He says to them, "Hey its okay, I'm your dad."

The youngest girl described him as "creepy".

When the eldest girl was 16 they took to strip searching her. This was led by the father, with the mother standing right there. They were concerned about her smuggling drugs in and out of the house, probably marijuana. This searching also included looking under the sanitary napkin stuck with adhesive to her underpants. This so angered her that she threw her underpants at her father. The mother and father have admitted to this strip searching and have tired to justify it.

********************************************************************
CONCLUSION
********************************************************************

So our DA's Office has charged this guy with 6 felonies. These recognize that this was a child he had regular access to and that the practice was being repeated, and that there may have been some physical coercion involved in some aspects of this. If convicted on all counts the maximum sentence he could receive exceeds 50 years.

Is this what you mean by a long sentence? Do you think this is right in this situation? What sentence do you think he should get? This is what I really want to know. I just want to know what other people think, as I am a beginner here, but I am going to get myself into the middle of this.

The police report was more graphic than what I wrote. I did not write it the way they did because I don't want to traffic in such texts, as I don't know how people might read them on the open net and on these sorts of forums. The police wrote it the way they did, because they had to under the circumstances.

I am greatly offended by what this man did. I am also offended by the mother and by their entire church. I am offended by the acts, and also by the attitudes which try to justify and legitimate them.

A curious thing, a few days ago this defendant just happened to sit down across from me at a table in a library. He was using his laptop computer. I spoke to him in a friendly way.

I take great exception to this guy's religion, and to all the attitudes which underlie it. I also take exception to the way he projects this into his occupation of motivational speaking. But beyond that, I have found him and his wife to be nice, though kooky. They extended themselves to come to court for another case which I am concerned with, when they did not need to. If they could impose the judgemental standards of their religion onto other people, then I would consider them dangerous. As it stands now though, they are only dangerous when they can use a parental authority to impose their religion based predjudice.

So I have some reservations about aiding in their destruction, about inserting myself into this matter. But on the other hand, it is something I care about deeply. Also, I heard the guy black sheeping the eldest daughter. He spoke directly to me and did this. He said that the whole case is based on false accusations and that the reason for this is this daughter's own problems with sex, drugs, and alcohol from the age of 16. He said she was even having sex in the bushes in the park. He also blames her for turning the two younger daughters against him. He said that what she has done with them since they were transfered into her custody has been."Pure malice!" By this time he was pacing back and forth and making lots of gestures.

Well sorry guy, you stepped into my territory. At least it is territory I want to advance into. As far as I am concerned that sort of denigration, black sheeping, is by itself cause for redress.

I asked him about the "false accusations", I said, "Do you mean there is no substantial basis to the claims, or do you mean that it is a matter of misinterpretation?"

"It's a matter of misinterpretation."

So its like it says in the police report, he generally admits to what is being claimed. What it seems then is that he just rationalizes this some way as being in some different category than sexual molestation, and as being a parental perrogative. What it comes down to is this is the role he sees himself as authorized by God Almighty to fulfill. This is why he has children and this is why he practices the Family System.

So again, what sentence do you think he should get?

What could be added to what the cops and DA are already doing? What could I possibly do here? First I wish there were some deprogramming resources available. These girls need help in deconstructing all the ideology behind Born Again Christianity, the Good Family, and Motivationalism. Second, looking at this as a beginner I still am not exicted about this guy getting a real long sentence. Rather, I just want the children to get the money. These are the areas where I think it could be possible that I could locate resources which would help.

And yes, I do want to completely pauperize these parents. I think their assets should even be seized before they can be handed over to his high powered Sex Offender Defender. I mean, this is how they do it in Narcotics and Escort Service cases, they deem the assets proceeds of illegality, and they are able to seize them.

Well, these assets are the proceeds of Bourgeois Family Happiness Inc., an enterprise which exploits children. So they should not be able to retain control of those assets and use them to hire a specialist law firm.


Right to Kill (1985)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KflGXruJRc

Foster care reform litigation:
http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/

Becoming Other
Exploited Children United, new portal page:
http://theexploitedunited.onlinewebshop.net

Top
#404015 - 07/18/12 09:13 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Dealing With Bad Faith

Anybody remember Gene Scott? He was on satellite television
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45cAaIHdozI part 1 of 6

I know a self appointed preacher who seems to be imitating Scott. Most definitely he is playing the part of the abusive parent, in style, message, and just in the role itself. Its almost a parody, except that people like that are impossible to parody.

Do you remember Terry Kellogg who appeared with John Bradshaw in his PBS series "On the Family"?

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Toys-Dreams-Understanding-Codependency/dp/1560730013

Kellogg said, "Co-dependents come it two types, those who watch the PTL Club, and those who watch the Catholic Channel."

WriterKeith and phoenix321,

I can relate to all that you say. Where I am coming from though is I want to do something about it. I recognize that parents are using children for their own emotional needs, and then justifying it as legitimate authority. Well, I want to take apart that claim to authority, I want children to be guaranteed certain minimum social and economic rights independent of their parents, and I want to severely penalize parents who are using children and using the parental role for their own identity needs.

Some of these matters I have come to look at differently than most people do. Like someone might say:

"I grew up in a dysfunctional family. No one could communicate with anybody else. It was all triangulated and crazy. So life has been hard for me. But now, things are starting to work out as I have ( then follows a list of all the things taken to symbolize successful adulthood.....job, income, residence, car, stuff, spouse, children, investments, retirement plan, burial plot ). So I am glad that I have been able rely on myself and leave the past behind."

Well I listen to that and my reaction is, "It sure doesn't sound dysfunctional to me. It sounds completely functional because you've fully accepted the Self-Reliance Ethic. This is how you judge yourself, and presumably everybody else. It also sounds like because of this ethic you exonerate your parents. You may portray them in an unflattering manner, but it goes no further. I mean, some tribal societies use hot coals and sharp stones to do scarification and genital mutilation. The kind of family you are describing is just as functional as are those hot coals and sharp stones."

"Oh, well you don't understand, there was also sexual, physical, and emotional abuse."

"Attitudes about what constitutes abuse have changed during the last 50 years and are continuing to change. In most of the cases the parents seem to think that what they did was right, and that despite public professions to the contrary, that it was necessary. It all serves to break the child, and this is how the parent legitimates it. You talk about how well you are doing in terms of self-reliance and wanting no redress, so it seems like it worked."

"Oh, but people don't think like that now. Just look at the books on the store shelves today."

"Yes, there is a long history of books to promote parenthood. One of the first of the liberal pedagogies was Rousseau's Emile. Alice Miller writes about this. It describes how to make it look to the child like it is free, while actually the parent holds all power. It outlines dialogues where the parent is clearly playing head games with the child. These sorts of books are continually be re-written as the market saturates. In my day it was Benjamin Spock. Today the books talk about things like "empathy", "nurturing", "attachment", and "natural". The foundations are always the same though, they make the parental role very important, and the give the reader license to execute it. They provide a justification. Making images is what capitalism does. This books are most definitely part of this. The images give people something to aspire to, something to buy the accessories for, and a way to measure themselves. The one who is getting used is the child."

So I want to find ways to strike back.

Some of the happiest people I have ever met are from Latin America. For them family seems to be something of experience, not an ideology. The ones I speak of usually don't read any books in English or Spanish. Okay, so I try to understand that. Mostly its that they have not been full adapted to middle class norms and aspirations. They are innocent of such.

Okay, well I am not them, and most of the people I know are nothing like that. Also FWIW, what I say does not apply to Hispanic Pentecostals, as most of them have families filled with alcohol, drugs, violence, and criminal convictions and so they use religion as a denial system.

Its the middle class of the industrialized nations who are living in Bad Faith. They are using children, knowingly, and it is the children who suffer and will contiue to suffer over the long years it takes to dismantle it. These kinds of parents are the ones I want to go after, and the litmus test is not abuse, but rather it is animosity.

First and foremost, I don't want these sorts of parents to escape with money. If you have used a child, then you are responsible. Maybe you have nothing, but more often than not the people who do this do have something. And besides its in imitation of those higher up the socio-economic scale that other exploiters aim. So going after those who have used a child, where there is animosity, and especially when they blame the child, makes perfect sense.

The lightest form of redress is simply to abolish disinheritance. I say that this should apply in all cases. But where there is animosity, then there has to be more immediate redress.

Rather than promote the self-reliance / exoneration ethic, I want to stop the exploitation.

Of course then this current fundamentalist family sexual molestation case, where the father tries to legitimate it by black sheeping the eldest daughter, makes for an excellent place to jump in!

Becoming Other

Exploited Children United, new portal page:
http://theexploitedunited.onlinewebshop.net

Bad Faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)

Chaka Khan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOrp4smAmHg

Top
#404047 - 07/19/12 03:32 AM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
WriterKeith Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 951
Loc: southern California
Bec. Other, power to ya! I think the first step in the U.S. is to remove the statute of limitations for suing and prosecuting perps of sexual abuse.

re: Dr. Gene Scott. I could tell stories. Firsthand stories. My early career was in gospel music and I crossed paths w/Scott when I accompanied a gospel recording group in their appearance on his show. Wow... that was in the 1970s.

I also knew a handful of folks who had been a part of his TV program staff and were trying to get away from him at the time. No one could just simply resign and leave.
_________________________
"A burned bridge can be a gift; it prevents us from returning to a place we should have never been."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JfvAPZGjds

Top
#404201 - 07/20/12 03:28 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: WriterKeith]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
WriterKeith,

Yes, lifting the statues of limitations is extremely important. Thanks for the encouragement too.


What do people think about the 50 year sentence that this guy faces?

I still have reservations about getting involved in this because I find our criminal justice system to be excessive. There are other things I am involved in where I am trying to overturn convictions and alert people as to how unfair our criminal justice system is. If I got involved here, among other things, I'd be helping to bring about this high sentence.

I want the guy to be severely penalized, but not really in this way. My agenda is a broader one, not limited to sexual molestation. And of course I see religion as being a central component of this and it is part of my motivation.

BO
Exploited Children United
http://theexploitedunited.onlinewebshop.net/

Top
#404568 - 07/24/12 12:39 AM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
WriterKeith Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 951
Loc: southern California
You wrote this summary? Were you involved in investigating the case in some way?
_________________________
"A burned bridge can be a gift; it prevents us from returning to a place we should have never been."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JfvAPZGjds

Top
#404787 - 07/25/12 07:15 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
No, all I've done is talk to the defendant and sereptitiously read the case file. Now I have also taken to reading some writings he has published online so I can better understand him.

For some years now I have been advocating for redress when children have been exploited by the family system. This is not limited to cases that cross over the lines into abuse.

Sexual molestation is clearly abuse, so there should be redress. But my own interest is more in civil redress, suing for money, not prison.

Now, having said that, I acknowledge that serious cases of abuse, especially sexual abuse, should result in some prison. I am not sure how much, and I am not sure how much this case warrants.

So I am seeing this as possibly an ideal place for me to jump in and become an agent in actualizing what I have been calling for. But on the other hand, I have a great deal of ambivalence about it.

I am ambivalent because I would not even know of this case if it were not confided to me by the defendant. So to jump in and try and influence it would be a betrayal of confidence.

I am ambivalent because I don't feel good about the 50 year sentence. Our DA's Office over charges cases in order to be able to pressure people into pleading guilty. This is their standard practice, but I still don't think it right. There are other cases I have been involved in, one even involving the same prosecutor, where I am an activist for the defendant. On the whole I think our criminal justice system is too harsh, we put too many people behind bars, for too long, and for too little cause.

Mostly what I want is for the children to get the money. If I got involved it would be to communicate that idea to them and to try and facilitate it. I have no idea if they would listen.

Some people seem to feel that it is best to never get money from abusive parents, and that way to be able to claim full credit for one's own successes. While I am not going to find fault with any specfic person who does that, I still do not agree with that as an over arching principle. The Self-Reliance Ethic is what is used to justify most familial abuse and exploitation. I feel that it is wrong. But these children might be like their parents. Most are.

I've been arguing that the standard for recovery of damages should be exploitation, not abuse. And the way of determining exploitation is animosity. I do not know how much animosity exists as I have never met the children and probably never will.

There is some evidence of animosity as I see it in the father's black sheeping of the eldest daughter.

His high powered sex offender defender has written huge reports and claims this daughter hates her father. In my book, all of this coming from the father is reason enough for financial recovery.

But I have ambivalence about this because it is bound up with such a severe criminal case.

Also I have been reading some of this guy's online writings, trying to better understand him. I am looking for the smoking gun, the proof that he is using the parental role to gain an adult identity. Results so far are mixed.

I'll say one thing, his religious beliefs are completely based on a flawed epistemology, an escape system, a denial system. He himself had a serious history with drugs and alcohol, before he "Got Saved" and "decided to become a Christian".

I know that this is part of why there are huge blind spots for him.

I have lots more to say, but initially I want to hear how other people see this, especially the 50 year sentence, and my interest in jumping into something like this and trying to influence it.



Deep Purple, Child in Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OorZcOzNcgE
_________________________
Becoming Other
Exploited Children United

Top
#406126 - 08/07/12 05:24 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Someone has written to me at length about a "dark side", so I've responded:


********, thank you for posting that. It is interesting and shows deep reflection. If I am understanding you then, you wrote that yourself. It is touching.

You talk much about a dark side. I look at things rather differently than you do. I don't fear what is in my dark side, or in other people's dark sides. This is not something I see a need to be concerned with. More than anything I have worked hard on myself to learn not to be moralistic. I am not saying I am there yet, but I have made a great deal of progress. The key will be when I start scoring some victories. I call this, "taking scalps".

As I see it, the moralistic view and the fear of a dark side is something associated with religion, and also with Sigmund Freud.

Century of Self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo

Freud's idea, you might just listen to 1 minute of this:
http://youtu.be/OmUzwRCyTSo?t=4m
"unearthed powerful sexual and aggressive forces"
"feelings we repressed because they were too dangerous"


In 1914 Freud was in Austria and watched hostilities erupt and denounced these "primitive forces" which had been unleashed. I do not agree with him, not at all. Though I would never endorse the Central Powers side of WWI, I do not see "primitive forces" as the problem. Rather I see things like monarchy and capitalism as the problem. So in criticizing ordinary soldiers, Freud is just plain wrong. Freud is laying the ground work for a doctrine of disengagement, of nirvana seeking.



Even today, psychoanalysis still denigrates aggression and sexuality, sees them as something which must be overcome, sublimated or harnessed. It finds fault anytime they are demonstrated. So psychoanalysis is just another type of religion, another way of refusing to engage.



Rather than responding with fear or by postulating good over evil, I look here to this. It provides an alternate way of responding to the world as it is experienced.



White's main page
http://web.williams.edu/wp-etc/philosophy/awhite/



Some 20 years ago when White's book came out someone I know gave an excellent talk, about Nihilism. Its one I keep coming back to.


If you might just read these three short portions of White's book,

Nihilism section of Within Nietzsche's Labyrinth:
http://web.williams.edu/wp-etc/philosophy/awhite/WNL%20web/Nihilism%20frames.htm
http://web.williams.edu/wp-etc/philosophy/awhite/WNL%20web/Transformations%20frames.htm
http://web.williams.edu/wp-etc/philosophy/awhite/WNL%20web/Completing%20frames.htm



White is interpreting Nietzsche's unpublished literary works, his Nachlass, commonly titled as "Will to Power". White sees the central idea as being nihilism and its transformations. He identifies 3 stages:



1. Religious Nihilism

2. Radical Nihilism

3. Complete Nihilism



I will try here to summarize what White says, and then offer my own take.



Religious Nihilism



Based on the sense that this world as it is does not have a right to exist, but needs some sort of other worldly justification. Needs some external categories or ideals, some sort of purpose. Nihilism begins with the failure of this attempt to endow the world with this external purpose.



While this most certainly is a type of nihilism, its adherents would deny that they are nihilists. Long ago I recognized that in the areas of self-help, motivationalism, and enlightenment seeking, this is the sort of thinking which dominates. I would also include here moralisms and concern about a "dark side".



Radical Nihilism



Nihilism becomes conscious or avowed when one realizes that these sources of external value are absent. They see the problem as being that nothing in our world corresponds to these highest values. Though they still do not deny the values themselves. They still believe in the categories. So even Radial Nihilism is not that radical. As they are horrified by what they see and forced to draw a verdict, they become avowed nihilists.



Complete Nihilism



One becomes a complete nihilist only when one has completed nihilism, when one has ceased to be a nihilist. Complete nihilism comes from an acceptance of the world as it is, and with the intention of engaging with it and shaping it.





So rather than follow doctrines of disengagement and resignation ( "You can't change other people, you can only change yourself" "Live and Let Live" ) I want people to band together and gain power, the power to vanquish foes. I'm not issuing a call to enlightenment seeking, I'm issuing a call to band together and seize power by inflicting consequence.



If you have been exploited by the Family System, then right now you stand alone because other people are not doing anything about it. They are claiming that they feel your pain, but this is just commiseration, really its just pity. They are hurting you, because they cannot face the pain of what was done to them. Most of all, they cannot face how our society condones such child exploitation. I want none of this. Instead I want people who want to fight, who want to band together and seize power, to actually enforce, to impose severe consequence upon those who use children.



Rather than follow things like psychoanalysis and religion, I want to restore my ability to fight, and my ability to fuck.



Now, about this current religious fundamentalist fatherly molestation case, what do people think about it. What troubles me most is the 50 year sentence that this guy could receive. I am having a hard time with this. You've read my description of the police report. What do you think about it?



How about my betraying a confidence, the fact that I would not know of this case unless the defendant decided to make me his confidant and disclosed it to me, and then my jumping into it and trying to influence it against him?



What I am more interested in than the criminal prosecution, is getting the children to sue for money. Any thoughts about this?



One of the problems here is that I am only hearing from the father, as he tries to defend himself. I want to operate from the child's perspective, and I do not have that. Yes, I have researched these people online, and they do have a significant presence. But I still am not able to taste their animosity. The child's animosity is after all just the bad faith of the parents. I have identified that as the indicator of when to strike. Here, I do not have that. Other social circumstances prevent me from openly approaching them. So my communication will have to be one which invites them to be open to their own animosity and to let that guide them. Any thoughts about this?


http://theexploitedunited.onlinewebshop.net/
BO

Rolling Stones ( with Mick Taylor )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSjT1JBLnN4&feature=related

Top
#408487 - 08/30/12 10:35 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Moved Off Of the Fence


What follows is a message sent to someone I knew face to face, who is now living overseas. I present it here in order that there might be original discussion:

********************


Yes, I have moved off of the fence. My last likely chance for conversation with the defendant has passed. Probably he is terrified and doesn't know what to do. He may even be in custody for
psychiatric evaluation. This is a guy who went from drugs and alcohol to Born Again Christianity and psychiatric medication. This guy has never dealt with the violence and abuse he grew up with. Instead he has tried to hide behind a parental role. We see how this has gone. Trying to make the Ideal Family means using children, exploiting them.

His main defense is still to say that all 3 girls are liars. This more than anything compels me to act. I have to stand with the children.

His defense lawyer is someone who specializes in child sex abuse and internet kiddie porn cases. He claims to be a civil libertarian, but really he is an arch reactionary. I already have the deepest of hatred for this lawyer. I would like to see him ******************************.

The lawyer has got the defendant convinced that because there is some contradictoryness in the statements of the younger girls, that the case should not have been charged.

I our last conversation I explained to the defendant that there is no strict formula. In many criminal investigations there is going to be some contradiction and some culpability in the victims. The DA's Office has to use its best judgment in deciding how to proceed. In the case of family molestation it is likely that victims will not even have the understanding of what has happened. I think this defendant has not really comprehended the implications of the concept that minors cannot be consenting. Think about the ramifications of this, an abusive parent blames what happens on the minor's own agency. It's not just in sex abuse cases but it's for anything. In his published writings he speaks of he and the wife "having trouble with one of their children", and having to have contact with the police. This was the oldest daughter and alcohol, marijuana, and sex. He blames her for all of this!

The police officer who wrote the report for this defendant's case is someone I have met long ago and took most positive notice of. I have a very high opinion of him. This defendant says, "he is a dirty cop".

The case surfaced because the youngest girl, then in the 8th grade, was talking with a youth councilor. She said somethings which alerted the councilor, an intern. So she pressed further. Then she did exactly what the law requires. She wrote it up and faxed it to Police and Child Protective Services. Soon Police were tracking people down and using a different detective to interview each family member.

Many in this guy's church blame the police for making something where there is nothing. Again, they go along with the black sheep interpretation of the eldest daughter. So she, being unsaved, is not to be listened to. She doesn't support the familyism. She has not made the professions which they want.

I think in showing my skepticism I may have helped to pressure him to plead guilty. This would probably mean a shorter sentence. It would mean less money going to the high power sex offender defender. I want the children to sue for all the money. I don't know that they have even considered this as a possibility.

I also told him and the wife that any talk about "The Family" or "Family Values" is always at the expense of children. It is children who pay the cost of this, children who are being used. It amounts to sacrificing children on the altar of the Family System. This probably is why the two of them have vanished, as they don't want to talk to me anymore.

I try not to be unfair in blaming the wife. But truth is, I can't stand to be around her, I can't even look at her. I find myself trying to pretend that she is not there. She has not been charged.

We learn by doing, by engaging with situations and handling the conflict well. We don't learn by confessing to a therapist or by letting a therapist instruct us. We don't learn by histrionic venting either.

Anyway, I have crossed the line, in sending them an email stating my interest in this, trying to sound open minded, and asking if they would be "offended" if I attended some of the trial. At least this way they won't be surprised. They won't feel so much that I have stabbed them in the back. I mean really, this guy has talked about writing a book about it. He seems to have a martyr complex. This message from me could also press him a little harder to plead guilty. The sentence he gets, especially if he does not plead guilty, could be in effect a life sentence.

I am almost done composing a message to publicize the case to journalists and activists. Of course I don't know how they will respond to it, but these are the same people I sat in the court room with during the ********* trial. My message emphasizes the religious fundamentalist aspect of this, trying to show that this is almost built in to the "familyism" of their religion. I talk about how most of the members have serious histories with alcohol and drugs, including this defendant. I talk about how he freaked out when his daughter at 16 started using drugs and alcohol, and how this is also when she got out of the home and when the molestation stoped. My message to these journalists is intended to make the hair on the backs of their necks stand up. I try to make this guy sound like the wacko which he is.

I explain how in their church they talk about the Second Coming and how "there is still time for more people to Get Saved", and how they say that dinosaurs must be mentioned somewhere in the Bible. The first time I ever met him, I felt that he was a wacko. I even told other people this, and cited specifically absurd things he had said.. This was long before I knew anything of this ongoing criminal case.

He is sensitive and intelligent. This is a reason this has been hard for me. But he is blaming his daughter. The lawyer wrote that she "hates her father", and this is supposed to make her a liar and the defendant innocent. I believe that she doesn't think any better of her mother, but the mother is not this lawyer's client. I have to stand with the child, and make this guy pay.

The oldest boy was diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, placed on medication, and also removed at the age of 16. I also see this as a related type of abuse. I want to make the parents pay for this too.

So I have already acted in announcing to him that I will attend the trial, and I am close to sending the message to journalists and activists.

Sometimes plea agreements are only reached on the morning of jury selection. This is what could happen in this case. At the right point I will be contacting the children, addressing my message to all of them. I have already made investigations to figure out how best to contact them. I will tell them that those who never act will forever be subjugated by the same sorts of abuse. There are real people behind it. The purpose of the abuse is to prevent you from being able to strike back. If you decline to ever strike back, then the abusers win. About the family what I always say is, "They break your wings so that you won't try to fly."

Attending the trial will deepen me in every possible way. In moving from passivity to action, I am forced to look harder at my own experience. I am already influencing this in some ways, in having stated my intent to attend to the defendant.

I want to be and need to be Man of Action.

Additional reflections on what it means to be unable to act.
http://freedomtoexpress.freeforums.org/speaking-in-tongues-t124.html#p229

What Louise Armstrong says is that the problem starts by turning it into personal pathology, an individual experience, and then following the therapeutic model. She also points out how religion and psychotherapy used to be seen as enemies. Now they have become one and the same, and that this is most alarming.
http://www.amazon.com/Rocking-Cradle-Sexual-Politics-Happened/dp/B000H2NEAE/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346374456&sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=louise+armstrong%2C+rocking+the+cradel

I also have to credit Deleuze and Guattari here. Writing back in 1972, the sameness of religion and psychotherapy is one of their primary points.

Reading:
Childism, confronting prejudice against children,
Elisabeth Young-Bruehl

She also maintains:
http://whosafraidofsocialdemocracy.com/

Young-Bruehl also emphasizes how the real problem is turning it into personal pathology. Once one does this, then action is impossible. Of course this has always been one of my primary objections to religion as well.

She writes about the large number of youth in detention. I think about this. I think about my own adolescence. I can see now that if I had ended up in some sort of juvenile jail, my parents would have loved it. They would not have admitted it. On the surface they would have been outraged. But they would be outraged at me, not standing with me. They would come to love it because it would exonerate them. They could say that I was defective and destined for such. Its just like this guy, the son getting a psychiatric diagnosis and him and the wife lamenting in their writings that he must be removed from the home. And then the daughter, supposedly "having a problem with sex, drugs, and alcohol", and then blaming her now for turning the two younger ones against them. I must stand with the children.

Again, I think of my own adolescence. There were troubles. Well into my 20's and 30's I completely blamed myself for the grief of my parents. Even now, I don't really understand what happened and why. But I believe that all of it came down to the ways in which I was used. They way I will come to understand more is by standing with children in exactly situations like this, I mean actually helping them get tangible redress. So here in this case I need to tell these children that those who don't learn to fight back will spend their entire lives in avoidance venues, while the same dynamics play out over and over and over.



*********************************

John Brown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4wCvPwigYw
When he was being held in Virginia awaiting execution, he refused consolation from any of the Southern clergy because they believed in the religion of external conformity and support for the status quo. Hence they supported slavery.
_________________________
Becoming Other
Exploited Children United

Top
#408559 - 08/31/12 04:19 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
NDbiker Offline


Registered: 07/27/10
Posts: 37
Loc: North Dakota
Becoming Other

A few of my opinions about this.

You know full well that the, fifty year, possible sentence is just a fluff number in the beginning of a case. Yes, if he was guilty on every count in a provable premeditative form, he would possibly be in jail for that entire amount of time. Because the justice system is more smoke and mirrors than actual justice, the fifty years canít be taken too seriously. Lets ignore the details of this case and say that a man is given fifty years in jail. I as a victim would have a small amount of peace, knowing that my perp couldnít physically hurt any additional children. It still wouldnít equate to justice. The perp would still have contact with the outside world and is capable of spewing forth additional emotional pain.

Your goal is to gain redress (scalps as you put it) in the form of money for these kids. I assure you, that canít undue the damage. It might afford the children some additional therapy, IF they choose it. Determining a dollar amount that is supposed to have equal value to the amount of torture endured isnít possible. No amount of money is equal to that kind of pain. I can see how a person could get wrapped up in trial and feel like they attained some justice in the short term. There isnít a way to predetermine how much a person will be affected. It could only begin to be measured after decades, of which the justice system wonít allow. If you really wanted to create change, that would be your goal.

Instead your focused on the lucrative end of it? I donít see your motivations being entirely on the behalf of these kids.

If you used animosity as your foundation for a case in proving that children were created entirely for utilitarian purposes, it would be impossible to prove. Animosity can come from too many different sources. It would be too easy for the defense to show an outside source and leave a jury without certainty.

Removing your morality sounds too flawed when talking about justice? You say, ďIf you decline to ever strike back, then the abusers win.Ē What a load of crap! Everything you have typed so far has been about manipulating people into your view of things. A lot more could be achieved with a lot less!

Top
#410068 - 09/13/12 10:00 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Hello NDBiker,

Sorry I've been so slow to respond. I have been involved in communications with newspaper journalists. I've also had another couple of conversations with the defendant and the wife. I've been tied up other ways too.

Thank you for responding. I've been posting about this because I want to hear other opinions and discuss it from different angles. All the more so, because I still had a great deal of ambivalence about how I would enter into this. Some variables are still in play. You are one of very few who has had anything to say. I knew for certain that I needed to be involved in this case, to back up the children. Its not so much to protect them from further harm from their parents. No, its to stand with all those who feel animosity towards their parents so that a path towards justice, instead of submission, can eventually be established. If those of us who feel the animosity don't stand together, who is going to stand with us? We need to protect each other from people who think it not right to feel animosity towards one's parents and towards the Family System as a whole. More often than not this means protecting ourselves from advocates of psychotherapy and religion. But what it really seems to come down to is the Self-Reliance Ethic. It is this ethic which exonerates parents and which parents are playing to. Only by standing together is there a chance that justice can be obtained. Also, if we want to be able to honest with ourselves and others, then we have to protect ourselves from harm which be directed at us from those who are threatened by what we say. People are threatened because what we say defeats their own denial systems. As such, reactions can be hostile and persecutory.

You wrote:

"You know full well that the, fifty year, possible sentence is just a fluff number in the beginning of a case. "

Yes, what you are saying could be true, but maybe not. I feel that there is a very good chance that the jury will convict on all counts. When the jurors deliberate they will not know the potential sentences. Then after the verdict, its just whatever the judge wants to do with him.

I am the public advocate for another man who is serving a life plus sentence over a conflict with a girlfriend and her father. No one died. No one was permanently injured. My friend probably did only the very minimum necessary to save his life. He may be completely innocent. But what he got was a life sentence, plus a whole bunch of years. There were serious problems with the Judge and with his Defense Attorney. Our system can be extremely unfair.

With this religious fundamentalist case, I feel that the more the defendant talks, the more he will incriminate himself because people will be offended by his logic. The more his lawyer tries to advance allegations against the eldest daughter, the more the jury will be angered. They will take it out on the defendant. So conviction on all counts is a definite possibility. Its all the more so now, as I have gotten involved and I am exerting influence.

Our DA's Office has learned that they do not need evidence to convict people. They do it by the creation of a story, a psychotic narrative. The Prosecution will present this, if necessary even trashing their own witnesses. "Don't listen to the witnesses. I have experience with these sorts of cases. Listen to me." They get away with it.

I am not a fan of our criminal justice system. Our country locks up more people and for much longer times than the European countries do. We lock up a higher percentage of our people than does any industrialized nation. We try to use prisons to solve very complex social problems, and it does not work at all. If anything, it makes for a harsher world and increases the crime rate. We have a higher crime rate than do the nations which have less harsh criminal justice systems.

In entering into this, I have to consider that the 50 year sentence is like Russian Roulette. The defendant could get it, or something close to it. If I contribute to it, then I am also responsible for the outcome. This type of responsibility is what comes when one abandons Live and Let Live, or 12-step powerlessness, and instead decides to take action.

In my wanting the defendant to be imprisoned, I am not primarily motivated by a concern that he could hurt more children. First of all, I don't see him as someone who would prey on children outside of the family. Even though the massages started when his eldest daughter was only 8yo, I am not seeing him as a pedophile. He would not go after any other children, because he has no claim on them. With his daughters he feels that he has an ownership right. When he started to rebel against the lifestyle choices he had made, commonly known as a mid-life crisis, he expressed this by acting psychotic and getting put on medication. He found that he no longer liked the wife, because of the dynamics of their enmeshed relationship and because all it amounted to was keeping up appearances. Something like this probably applied to his career choices too. But rather than admit this to himself, he accepted the logic of a psychiatric diagnosis. He then made the eldest daughter into his petting partner, while pretending it was something else. Then when she reaches the age of 16 and starts having sex with a boyfriend, he freaks out. He loads the two of them into his car and drives them to the police station. This daughter gets out of their home, but then he starts grabbing at the younger two and watching them dress and undress. He is not a pedophile, his is a father. This is most evident in the logic he is using to try and defend himself. And this is all the more reason why he must be convicted.

As far as the defendant inflicting more emotional pain, I know he is going to do this, convicted or not. He is still going to try and proclaim his innocence and try to fight this. The high powered sex offender defender he has hired is advancing a reactionary political agenda. So the defendant will continue to attack the credibility of the 3 girls, and the legitimacy of any and all such cases.

For me, where I would stand would have been easier to decide if the children had killed their father, even killed their mother too.

Paul Mones defends parricide cases. We have around 300 per year in the US. Defending them is not easy.
http://www.amazon.com/When-Child-Kills-P...n+a+child+kills

Anyway, I've put it out there for everyone. Based on how I have described it, do you think he should be imprisoned? For how long? Do you think the children should recover a financial settlement? How much and how should it be divided? I am not aware that any of them are thinking financial settlement at this time.

So why do I want him to be imprisoned if not to protect other children or to stop the infliction of more emotional pain? Its to make an example of him in order to attack the authority and justification which the Family System invokes when using children for instrumental purposes. The high powered sex offender defender advances the line that the eldest daughter hates her father, and that this is the reason for this entirely unfair prosecution. In the face of such a claim, I have to stand with this eldest daughter, so that such an argument cannot be used, so that her animosity towards her parents can be vindicated. Those of us who feel animosity towards our parents face hostility and denigration from every corner. So then the only way to advance is to band together and start scoring some visible victories.

This case is a better place to take such a stand than many family molestation cases. Our justice system strikes harder on poor people, hard living people, and people with criminal records. Many molestations result in parental separation, or the molestation doesn't even begin until there is parental separation.. This case fits none of these parameters. The parents are married, well-off, financially solvent, white collar, and have spotless records. They are heavily involved in their fundamentalist church. The man has written of his intent to someday become a minister. The husband and wife are standing together. I just found a social networking profile for the wife. It is drenched with the same self serving pity and melodrama that the defendant puts out. Their defense is entirely based on calling the three girls liars, and then faulting our criminal justice system for not seeing this. They are not saying that the acts alleged never happened at all, they just dispute the interpretation. So this is a perfect case to use for an example, and for me to be able to claim as a "scalp". I have to stand with the daughters, with all of the children. This is the only way forwards for those of us who reject the Self-Reliance / Parental Exoneration Ethic and instead demand redress.

I have heard all sorts of horror stories about foster care, foster families, step families, and adoptive families. I believe everything I hear and I am very sorry that people have suffered such. I am also pleased to say that in the US the high water mark in lawsuits is $30Meg, against a county Child Protective Services for sexual abuse in foster care. That kind of a judgement does change things.

But what will really solve the problem is the outing of The Family, that is the biological well-off married parents and liberal pedagogy family, the Good Family. These problems which occur in the other forms do so because people are blinded by the Good Family, and because people accept the Self-Reliance Ethic which underlies it. They see these other forms as poor substitutes, ones where problems are to be tolerated. Well, if people start to understand better how The Family works, and what kinds of safeguards are needed to protect children from being used, then the same issues with these other forms will also be addressed.

As far as the girls getting therapy with money from a financial settlement, I am opposed to therapy and to the entire therapeutic paradigm. I would not recommend it to anyone. When I write to all of the children I am going to elaborate on this and try to discourage them from having any contact with therapists.

No, money would not undo what has happened. I understand this.

These girls are already to doing very well on their own. They were not looking for redress from the legal system. They did not intentionally start this case. They did not "drop a dime" on their parents. It started because the youngest one, in the eighth grade, was talking to a youth councilor. They have not taken deliberate acts to keep it going. It goes because the criminal justice system is how the State legitimates itself.

You know that once this case started the eldest daughter got the younger two removed from the home, and then got herself and her new husband appointed as their legal guardians. No, I am not too worried about these girls. They have demonstrated that they are quite able to act on their own behalf. I am though worried about the boy who ended up taking a psychiatric diagnosis, was placed on medication, and was expelled from the home, for his own good. Him I am very concerned about because he has not acted in his own interest, but rather accepts the logic applied to him.

To focus on this aspect I've been promoting the classic text on the issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Sanity-Madness-Fam...+and+the+family

It shows how none of these so called conditions would exist outside of the context of the family. It makes for fascinating reading and I strongly recommend it. At this point it may even be available somewhere online.

I also note that in Anti-Oedipus Deleuze and Guattari do not pay direct homage to too many people. They in fact seem to oppose Laing and his thesis. But in fact, you could not understand what they are saying without first understanding Laing. They are completely indebted to him, as is Foucault.

Overall what concerns do I have about these children long term? Its the same as I would have with most people, that the Family System has been effective. Its not dysfunctional at all, as they are very much like their parents. They define themselves by Self-Reliance. They may not be able to see how their parents' lives worked and they may end up repeating the pattern. They may not be receptive when I try to encourage them to file a lawsuit. This is their liability. So what they need is deprogramming. They need to be deprogrammed from the doctrine of the Good Family, from Born Again Christianity, and from Motivationalism ( from their father and from their church ). I will explain this when I write to them, but unfortunately I have little to suggest to them. Therapy is the last thing I would suggest, and I will explain this. I will commend them for what they have already done and encourage them to stay in the fight. If we want deprogramming, if we want different ways to live, if we want to stop the instrumentalization of children, then we have to make these things happen. So activism on on behalf of ourselves and others in the same situations has to be the way. I am already being challenged intensely just by having moved off the fence and making communications which influence this.

You wrote:

"Determining a dollar amount that is supposed to have equal value to the amount of torture endured isnít possible."

I would never try to determine such an amount. These children have been USED, sexual molestation is only one of the more extreme facets of this. I want to establish the principle that if someone uses a child, then they must pay. I want to clean these parents out, leave them with nothing. Whatever they have, I want to make sure that the children get it. The children should not have been removed from the home. It should be theirs just as much as it was the parents'. The perpetrators are the ones who should have been removed and that home and everything else should now belong to the children. You might think of this as a variation on divorce and on the definition of Community Property.

You wrote:

"If you used animosity as your foundation for a case in proving that children were created entirely for utilitarian purposes, it would be impossible to prove. Animosity can come from too many different sources. It would be too easy for the defense to show an outside source and leave a jury without certainty."

Well certainly here the Defense is trying to use a claim of animosity as the cornerstone of its case. My first interest is in sinking this as a defense and turning it around. Certainly their church would try to find other explanations for animosity. This already seems to be in play. My own argument about utilitarian purposes is moral not legal. That is, it applies in all cases, not just this one. So really all that is necessary is to claim animosity, not to prove it or legitimate it. Again this could be seen as a variation on the divorce law and the concept of irreconcilability.

Long term I don't see civil suits as the remedy, too cumbersome. Holding parents accountable and bringing the Family System into check will be best served by more streamlined processes than lawsuits, but we are not there yet. One simple reform which I support would be to let the US follow Europe and prohibit disinheritance. Later I would see something like the Family Court or the Probate Court as the remedy. Simply go in and claim "irreconcilable differences" and proceed to a settlement.

Remember, I'm not advocating a penalty for sex or conception. That is not the issue here. Rather its for using a child. I mean like how some people would obtain a puppy or a kitten, and then abandon it after the summer. Or think of the way many men have used mistresses and then paid them hush money when they were done.

I want children to have social and financial rights and I want there to be institutions which safeguard these. These are to be independent of the family, Children should not be used by the family. But neither should they be used by the State or our society in order to keep their parents in harness. Children must be provided for, no matter what. Leaving them to their parents alone is high risk. They must have other adult connections, other places to go besides the familial domicile. Otherwise we will always be picking up the pieces at the end. So no, I'm not advocating a penalty for sex or conception or for trying to tell people not to have children. I don't see that it can work that way. My primary intent is to see to it that children are not seen as and used as house pets, and then told that they have zero redress.

You wrote:

"'If you decline to ever strike back, then the abusers win.' What a load of crap! Everything you have typed so far has been about manipulating people into your view of things. A lot more could be achieved with a lot less!"

Well, what penalty do you think the defendant should get? Do you think the children are entitled to financial compensation beyond that?

As far as being able to strike back, I don't mean just as it pertains to this case. I mean ever. If I can never strike back what could that mean? It must mean that I have been so shaped by the Family System, so influenced by its high level of functionality and effectiveness, that I am unable to act against it. In that case it would have to mean that my abusers have won. They have made me submit.

The Family System would then have been as effective on me as are the sharp stones and hot coals which primitive societies use for scarification and genital mutilation. Never being able to strike back would mean that I accept this and I am incapable of opposing it, because I have been broken, because I accept its logic.

Since this is not what I want, I have to find places to act. I am acting here, and I hope that by making a good showing here, I will be able to find more situations in which to act. What I most hope for is to find comrades. To a certain extent now I do have a high profile journalist in my camp.

I am being straight about what I am doing and why. The people who are doing unfair manipulations are the parents who use children plus doctrine from pedagogy manuals, psychotherapy, and religion to give themselves social identity.

Thank you for reading my posts and for giving a thoughtful reply and for sharing your views,

Becoming Other
http://theexploitedunited.onlinewebshop.net/

31:45 - 35:40
http://youtu.be/FZYs8OGeCAA?t=31m45s

When Love Comes to Town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2mIzIBoPtU

Top
#415032 - 11/01/12 09:50 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Outrage!

The father expected the girls to submit to drug tests and home pregnancy tests. The wife went along with this!

The second son is still loyal to the parents and talks about how the girls had had "trust invested in them", and how he "respects his parents". He stands with the parents and is blaming the girls for being "rebellious".

Christian Fundamentalism is all over this case!

The father installed keystroke tracking software on the girls' computers and he had all their passwords. He was always confiscating cell phones.

Now he doesn't seem to understand why he is on trial!
_________________________
Becoming Other
Exploited Children United

Top
#436883 - 06/04/13 07:55 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Iím still acting in the matter of the Christian Fundamentalist Daughter Molester. Inserting myself into this and continuing to take action has heightened my awareness of all the myriad forms of passivity and denial. Itís made me different too. I can look much deeper into my own life. I have a much better understanding as to the buried matters which have shaped me. Iím more able to break cleanly with all the social institutions which promote denial and conformity. Iím less interested in self-pity, and even more interested in action.

Just today Iíve acted to continue something which has already cost several people their jobs, and is going to cost someone else over a million dollars. The initials of this person are M.L. He has already felt my actions to the tune of at least $4k out of pocket, plus a great deal of embarrassment. But the big impact is still coming. Iím making strikes of one kind or another continually. Iím simultaneously attacking in as many places as I can.

Now I can even envision some scenarios where I could make a fighting re-entry into some realms that I was driven out of 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. Moving to action, inflicting consequence on people, can have this power of giving one a second chance in realms once thought completely closed off. Now the re-entry does have to be a fighting re-entry. That means that it too is based on inflicting consequence on people. You have to re-enter surrendered realms this way, by kicking ass. Otherwise you are just asking for pity. What it is always about are social legitimacy and power.

We gain power when we stand up for ourselves, and when we conduct ourselves in such a way that people admire us and so they stand with us. This way we come to have comrades. We destroy our power when we give people like therapists pedagogical authority and when we confess our intentions to them.

If you want to build power, then you are very careful about what you disclose, and to who you disclose it. Aggressive actions require operational security. You donít want to waste your energy in senseless arguments with worthless people. You donít want to be causing problems for yourself on down the line either.

If you are someone like me, then your life has been shaped by social stigma, stigma caused by the volitional acts of others. Then this social stigma compounds. The original violation is not recognized. Instead, you are the one held responsible. So each time there is a denial of a violation, there is a new layer of compounding. So then the real variable is how you respond to these multiple stigma. If you pretend that they do not exist, use denial, then you will always be struggling and always be doubting yourself. I feel it safe to say that a huge segment of the population lives their entire lives this way.

Another way is to recognize the stigma, but then remain in denial about the cause. False causes and no fault causes, are invented. You see this in the realm of learning disorders and psychiatric diagnoses. The party will see that they have some basic difference, but they exaggerate it and attach themselves to this concretized belief about it. They deny the real origins of the situation, along with their own experience. I have written about how strongly I disagree with John Elder Robison and how he believes in his autism-Aspergerís condition. Then he tries to argue that his autism gives him certain strengths. But the fact is that he shouldnít have to argue for anything. Such belief systems are another form of denial. The Christian Fundamentalist Daughter Molester believes he suffers from a psychiatric condition and he has tried very hard to build a life and a career on this basis. What he certainly has been able to do is make everything about his family revolve around it, and he has come very close to being able to make his criminal case revolve around it.

Either way, denial prevents one from striking back. So it amounts to an appeal for pity. You are saying, ďYes, I have this deficiency, so please make an accommodation for me.Ē Robison says, ďThey donít owe you an accommodation.Ē This is wrong; they do owe you an accommodation. Even more, they owe you the basic respect for personhood and privacy so that no accommodation is even needed. What they must do is revoke the conformist standards from which one might seek an accommodation. Robison says that they donít owe you an accommodation, but he is still acting like he needs an accommodation. He is asking for pity. And of course some of the worst pity is Christian pity.

It all changes when instead of asking for accommodations and pity, you have scalps to show. Iím talking about the infliction of consequence on living persons, persons who presumably had some ability to defend themselves. Iím not talking about waiting until people die so you can piss on their graves or write tell all books. Iím talking about standing up to people while they are still alive, inflicting severe consequence, and then bragging about it. When you have done this, when this is your public reputation, then you no longer have this compounded stigma. Instead, people start lining up behind you. Tangible Results, not Therapeutic Release.

When one still has not acted, then the stigma compounds because it is seen as being all in your head. One might engage in meditation, one might confess to a therapist, one might engage in histrionics to Ďget it all outí, or one might seek Jesus. No matter what though, itís still seen as all being in your head, all being about you, and all being your compounded problem and your failure to become ďwell adjustedĒ. People make it this way, they do this to us, because we let them!

One the other hand, once you are able to strike blows, able to vanquish foes, then it is about tangible issues, and you become a hero.

Enlightenment seeking, nirvana seeking, therapy, pillow punching, religion, itís all just more denial. Itís self-abuse. Itís the realm of collaborators. You canít have it both ways. You canít say that you stand with the child, but then offer nothing except commiseration. If you stand with the child, then you have to be inflicting consequences on those who justify themselves by using and abusing children. Unless we can band together and strike blows, then we will always be oppressed.

If you try to indict your parents, but then all you are willing to do about it is confess to therapists and read books about new and improved pedagogy, then you are not standing with your child. You are still coming from the position that it is your child who is in the wrong and who is going to have to learn to change and somehow Ďjust get over ití. You are still worshiping The Family. You are trying to anesthetize yourself and you are trying to win approval by aligning yourself with liberal pedagogy. You still want to believe that redress is not required.

Being in Austria and witnessing the outbreak of WWI, Freud wrote dismally about manís innate aggressive and violent tendencies. He did not say that there was something wrong with monarchy or with capitalism, just with manís innate aggressive and violent tendencies. This would become the underlying foundational premise of psychoanalysis. Aggressive tendencies are always seen as reversion to some sort of unenlightened and flawed state.

This became Alice Millerís problem too. She wanted to have it both ways. On the one hand, she is one of but a very few who have been able to show what it is like from the childís perspective and to show how the child is being used. But on the other hand, Miller was committed to Nirvana. This is what brought her to the works of Freud and into psychoanalytic training. She needed to believe that there was some way to avoid the need to redress wrongs and avoid the need to retake social and civil standing. So she showed us the childís perspective and showed us how people have children to fulfill their own narcissistic needs. She showed us how pedagogy, conservative and liberal, is always just a means of legitimating the parent and using the child. Then she showed us how the child is further betrayed by psychotherapy, religion, and by our entire society. But then that was it. She could not go any further. She could not violate the prime directive of psychotherapy: Thou shalt take no acts of aggression, except against feather pillows. Miller could not endorse any path of action to redress the wrongs. So instead she led her readers back into therapy, multiple times, in a desperate attempt to avoid the need to act.

Just like Freud, Miller feared these innate aggressive tendencies. She said of Moria that if Isaac raised his hand against Abraham, then ďthat would start the war we all fear.Ē At the time I first read this I accepted her logic. It sounded so morally elevated, so I figured I should accept it. I do not accept it any more. Why would we all fear such a war? I do not fear it. People fear it because then they would have to actually face the pain of how they were used, broken, and crushed. They cannot face what they have lost. And they cannot face how deliberately it was done to them. They cannot face how our society sanctions it. Miller cannot face this, so instead she only wants Isaac to ask, ďWhy?Ē

Like Freud, Miller was a Jew. Jews had survived for over a thousand years by being accommodating and by looking for protectors, but not by fighting back. As a young woman, Miller survived the Warsaw ghetto. In book 8, Paths of Life, she writes dismissively of the one time that Jews did fight back, the ghetto uprising. She could not face the fact that there are only two ways, redress or collaboration. She had a desperate need to believe that there is some way of facing the pain, but still without doing anything about it. Itís an absurd idea. People who are not acting, are not actually facing the pain, they are dissociating. But people still cling to the idea that they are facing the pain, so that they donít have to face it. This led Miller into a form of Primal Therapy. And then after that her writing no longer had its power to penetrate. She turned into a kind of a liberal pedagogue herself, and her further contribution was extremely limited.

And let there be no doubt about it, some of the biggest online shits Iíve ever encountered are the devotees of Primal Therapy. One woman, herself a practicing primal therapist, was very angered by my posting. So to deflect discussion, she introduced the subject of ďsomatic experiencingĒ. She wants to know how to make such somatic experiences go away. Yes, thatís right, she is committed to the view that itís all in your head, and so you just have to figure out some way of excising it. She uses Primal Therapy as an opiate. Itís not just to make her feel good. Itís because she wants to believe that redress is not required. She wants to believe that itís just painful memories. So of course, such a person is a collaborator.

Well, itís not just painful memories. You can see the effects in your social and civil standing. Itís in the opportunities you have lost. Itís in the social institutions and practices youíve had to defend against because they are realms where you donít have legitimacy. Itís in your lost relationship, educational, career, and economic opportunities. Itís in your compromised physical health.

You donít get any of it back by confessing to your therapist, by punching pillows, or by reading books about communications skills and liberal pedagogy. The only redress is found in building a band of comrades and then striking blows, inflicting consequence. This is the only way that things will ever change. Itís the only way that we, the ones facing the truth, will ever have social legitimacy.

Here is a list of all the faults that parents find in their blacksheep children. It should look familiar:

ē Drug and alcohol abuse
ē Failed personal and romantic relationships
ē Loss of religious faith, in cases of clergy abuse
ē Disinterest in family relationships
ē Disintegration of a family
ē Poor self-esteem
ē Feelings of deep depression
ē Difficulties with casual social relationships
ē Feelings of isolation and despair
ē Loss of trust in authority figures and institutions who don't report child molestation
ē Despair in reaction to persecuting attitudes of police
ē Anger
ē Inappropriate sexual behavior
ē Poor work habits
ē Unemployment or underemployment

The streets of America are filled with such persons. Always they are being told that they need Recovery, they need Jesus, and they need to learn Personal Responsibility. But this list was not presented as a list of faults. Can you guess where I got it from? I got this from a prominent law firm which handles cases of childhood sexual abuse. These they consider to be the long term effects of such abuse. Get it, the faults that parents find in their blacksheep children are exactly the long term symptoms of childhood abuse.

If you are somebody who tells people that they need therapy, that they need to punch pillows, that they need to learn about liberal pedagogy, or that there can be no redress, then you are a collaborator. You are making the people who want to fight back wrong, and you are helping the perpetrators. Because you canít face the pain yourself, you are attacking those who are trying to face it, those who donít want to Ďjust get over ití. I am offended that you are even breathing air.

I stand up to such cock roaches in my face to face life on a daily basis now. I donít take any shit. No one fucks with me because I donít give them the chance. I maintain and defend the very highest of privacy walls. People who have still tried to denigrate me, have lived to regret it.

Thatís face to face. Online however can be a different matter. Some people are drawn to online because they believe that they can use it to disrespect people with impunity. Well itís not going to matter. The power they have given themselves only works on their own kind. Those who use online this way are completely irrelevant. And no, Iím not promoting Live and Let Live here. As people stand up to the collaborators face to face, the tolerance for those who use online to aid the perpetrators will also vanish.

Judaism is actually something Deleuze and Guattari look to, though not to Zionism. They see in the Jew the one who has no place because he rejects ideologies. He is the one singled out as the scapegoat ( Cain, Jonah ), the one who has to keep moving. They describe this as deterritorialization. But included in this for them is the ability to organize and to strike blows. Itís actually in this organizing that power is developed.

Rather than follow Freud, Miller, or the Primal Therapy devotees, I look to the Abolitionist movement. One of my particular heroes has long been John Brown. Turns out that he is someone Deleuze and Guattari also admire. Brown became the scapegoat, the one who has to keep moving. As they put it, he became other by becoming black.

What Deleuze and Guattari say in Anti-Oedipus is that the State is always the problem. Some critics have misunderstood this. They seem not to have noticed that they also say that Capitalism can always allow for additional axiomatics, like for workers and for women. What they mean is that the forces which keep the State in place are the forces of repression. But they are also describing the development of Social Democracy which can make provisions for those disenfranchised and vulnerable. Some critics of D and G have missed this second part.

Remember my initial concern about this case. I did not want to be one of those calling for tougher criminal enforcement, and strengthening a system which already incarcerates huge numbers of poor and minorities, and mostly for things which are the result of just being economically disenfranchised. Often prison inmates are just the blacksheeped children. I do not want to contribute to the state repression. So the only way I could see myself aiding in this effort to put the defendant in prison for decades, would be if it were my concession simply for being able to live in a civilized society. I could let the state lock him up, if they were doing it because what I would do to him on my own would be worse. That way, the State is acting because I am putting pressure on it, so it has to in order to maintain its claim to authority.

So I reflect on the actions of John Brown. In 1854 the congress decided that whether Kansas would be free or slave would be decided by voting. They called it Popular Sovereignty. This shameful proposition was explosive and intolerable. Pro-slavery people from Missouri were agitating and they sacked the town of Lawrence, killing six. Brown and his band of guerrillas responded by killing slave owners along the Pottawatomie Creek. They dragged them out of their homes and then hacked them to pieces with broad swords, for a total of five.

Yaleís David Blight, parts 6 thru 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzOIn2WVAw&list=EC5DD220D6A1282057
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_Massacre

So I asked myself, if I lived in a world where that was the only sort of justice available, could I do it, could I make myself the enforcer? I cruised by the defendantís home. It is very nicely kept and in a pristine neighborhood. Itís not the sort of place most people would associate with child molestation. What Paul Mones writes is that the more well off the parents are; the harder it is for the children to find protection. The parents are just not suspected. Outside authorities who should act, donít. What Iíve learned from the Milan School of Family Systems Therapists is that outside interventions are what differentiates the working class from the middle class. Psychotherapists usually work with the middle class. These folks hire their own doctors. Outside authorities have little basis to intervene. With the working class, if there really is such a thing anymore, there is always outside intervention. There are parole and probations officers. There are child protection officers and public assistance officers. They are always being acted upon by governmental authorities.

Actually I know someone who used to be part of our County Public Mental Health System. Now though he has accepted a psychiatric diagnosis of his own. This puts him on medication, and it also gives him disability money. So his income is fixed and limited. He tries to work the very same system that he used to work in. He is always speaking of the places they ďsend the indigent patients.Ē He believes that the only thing keeping him from completely falling into their ranks is this psychiatric medication. He fears the symptoms we identify as mental illness. He believes the medication protects him. I have tried to shake him of this view. But he really really believes it. I listen to his stories of dealing with the system. Wow, if you are not paying the bill, but are in the countyís system, the treatment is horrible. They see their job as making you change. Itís all about using shame and guilt to make you feel that you are the problem.

So I am proceeding down the street in the defendantís middle class neighborhood and I come to his home. Could I break down the door? I thought of all the sorts of things people would say, ďyou have to respect private property Ö violence solves nothing Ö no one should be interfering in family affairs Ö its better just to let it all go Ö why do you want to be involved in this Ö Live and Let Live is the better wayĒ I thought about how vehemently this guy blacksheeps eldest daughter, and about how his entire defense is based on discrediting her. I see on his facebook page how he hides behind a parental role. I remember the wife talking about how 30 members of their church will come to court to testify as character witnesses. I see that nothing will change, until this guy is made into an example. I see that the eldest daughter has had to grow up in this environment, and that the only possible remedy would be one that comes from the outside society. We failed to act in allowing all of this to situation to ensue. So we are the only oneís who could remedy it.

Could I drag him out onto the sidewalk and then could I kill him? Iíve heard all the responses thousands of times, ďyou should look at yourself and see why it is that this guy is getting you so plugged in Ö you should just give it all up to Jesus Ö when will you have peace? Ö no one has a right to kill Ö I hope you find a good therapist.Ē

If the answer were to be no, that I could not act, then I had no business asking the state to lock him up. Only if the Stateís remedy were to be less than what I would do, only if the State were acting as a proxy for me, could I ask the State to lock him up. Yes, most certainly I would act. Itís contingent though on hearing firsthand the testimony of the 3 daughters first hand. I couldnít do it just on the basis of the police report. I have to hear the girls testify and I have to hear them under cross examination. Then, if convinced that they were being truthful, I could hunt him down and kill him. More than anything, this is about how he has harmed his children because then he does not have to face his own pain. If he gets away with it, then everyone else will be able to continue to do it, and then blame the child. The motive for the direct perpetrators and the motive for collaborators are the same. Itís always about avoiding oneís own pain, and maintaining a social identity.

The only way which is different from Nirvana seeking and collaboration is the way of action. Only when you are committed to inflicting consequence, and actually are doing it, are you facing the harm which has been done. If you are not acting, you are in denial. So what I seek then are comrades, those who want to act to inflict consequence. Alone, it is really hard. Our society is set up to treat those who act alone as psychopaths. But with a group of committed persons, nearly anything is possible. I want a group of people who will strike.

A particular type of child exploitation is built into industrial capitalism, where The Family is something people hold up to give themselves legitimacy. So I want to focus on North America and western Europe. I want to strike at persons who use children in order to try and legitimate themselves. Some have called this the Apperances Family, or the Instrumentalization of children. I want us to start taking offensive actions to hold the perpetrators responsible. The marker to look for here is animosity between parent and child. When an adult child comes forward and tells their story, they risk being denigrated for not living up to the Self-Reliance Ethic. This is where we must step in and strike. We will not be able act in every case, but we should be able to act in enough to make examples of some people. This will be enough to foster change, because it will force people to openly take sides. Just organizing and entering into this sort of a fight will give us back the freedom we have had to exist without.

Iíve approached some of those working to deal with Catholic clergy sexual abuse. I tried to get them to talk about familial sexual abuse, and specifically about legal redress. I got nothing. Some freaked out and turned hostile to me. Then I tried to get them to take part in this Christian Fundamentalist case. They just completely blackballed me. Itís all too provocative for them. Religion is based on family worshiping. Theyíve exposed Clergy Abuse, but they are not able to look at where it comes from and at how the Church has served to promote familyism. So those currently involved with Catholic clergy sexual abuse are not going to help here.
So I am looking for those who want to find ways to act, who want to establish redress and want to create deterrence. See, as long as we see it all as Ďour problemí, then we are denying ourselves social status and denying ourselves freedom. We are saying that we donít deserve to have social legitimacy, because we suffer from a defect.

Here in the US weíve just passed through another Motherís Day. Two women asked me to take a picture of them with a cake. So I obliged. Then they offered to take a picture of me with the cake and send it to my mother. They could not fathom the idea that I did not want that, that it was completely out of the question. I explained to them that originally Motherís Day came from feminist efforts to gain the vote, and it was to honor the contributions of women outside of the home. It was the commercial world which turned it outside in. But this was mostly just a means of blunting their probing and politely maintaining my privacy.

If instead of fighting back, we keep trying to give ourselves social status by reading the latest pedagogy manuals, then we are just further subjugating ourselves. We are making ourselves into a caste of persons who will never have legitimacy, because we have been harmed, and harmed so much that we believe we donít have the right to fight back.

I have been looking into a local patricide case. Some years ago a high school boy shot his father dead. It connects to this Christian Fundamentalist case because the boy and the father had been members of the same church. Both the defendant and the wife cited this to justify how scared they were and why they imposed a total crack down on their eldest daughter and eldest son. They took everything out of the childrenís rooms. They subjected the daughter to random strip searches, pregnancy tests, and STD tests. It was all designed to humiliate the children. They got the boy removed from the home on the justification of a psychiatric condition and him being dangerous. The girl finally got out on her own, but not before a fair amount of sexual fondling. This was intended to harm her, to make her like her parents and like the other members of their fundamentalist church.

There had been talk and a runaway list where the two children were to get a gun and kill their father. This is being used in this molestation case to try and justify the defendants actions and discredit the eldest daugther. Iíve written to the DA that you canít dance around this. You canít let the defense continue to make it look like the eldest daughter is trying to hide something. Instead learn from Paul Mones. Treat this like it actually was a charged attempted parricide. Imagine the worst case, that the only reason the sister and brother didnít do it was the constant searching. Then make the jury understand how the situation looked to the them, how they saw there being no other alternative. Exonerate them in them in the eyes of the jury. You have to do this because the defense is still based on blaming the children. Then get the father convicted.

I did not fully understand this Christian Fundamentalist case on the way in. I did not understand how the Defense could perpetuate the blacksheeping of the eldest daughter and try to turn it all back on her and make conviction very difficult. These are extremely conformist parents. The eldest daughter may want to be different from them, but she is not. So it sounds like she is accusing her father because he is someone she cannot look up to and admire. It sounds like she is accusing him, just as he is accusing her. Because the parents are the ones who had the power, it sounds like their accusations are just a reflection of eldest daughterís accusations against them. Our society makes the child the one who is wrong, when accusing the parents. But in fact, she is only accusing them because they have done her wrong, by their own standards. Iíve written at great length to explain this to the DA.

The specific charged accusations against the defendant tend to get lost. The defense attorney is someone who has built his career by turning molestation cases back against the child victims. He has studied the patterns in family conflicts and has learned how to do this. I was not expecting anything like this going in. The DA seems not to have been ready for it either.

Iíve been on lots of forums, and had to put up with lots of denigration. From the postings, and even more so from some private communications, Iíve still been able to glean something. Familial sexual molestation is not done just for the sexual gratification of the perpetrator. No, there is also a second purpose of at least equal weight. Itís done to harm the child, to make them feel that their sexuality is dirty and to make them ashamed of and mistrustful of their own desires. Itís done to imprint upon the child the understanding that all must be sacrificed to keep up appearances. Itís done to make the child like the parent. As the child has been used their entire life, so the child is now to fully understand and accept this. The parent needs this so that their own denial systems are not threatened and so that they donít have to face the pain in their own experience.

So I worked long and hard and wrote a very careful 22 pages of analysis to the DA. Iíve done everything I can to give her what she needs to get the job done. Iíve made my involvement in this completely partisan and Iíve extended myself as far as possible, making numerous written and verbal communications. Iíve shown her everything that this defense attorney was able to do to turn it back on the eldest daughter. And Iíve argued that this defendant deserves the full 50 year sentence. Iíve argued that there needs to be additional legal reform because the wife should be in prison too. Iíll be disclosing more of this in the months ahead. For now I can only disclose a little. I have to withhold the rest of it and I cannot discuss the specific standing of the case.

Iím also trying to make the argument that there also have to be civil suits, as the criminal bar can never be set low enough. Further, there must be a disinheritance prevention, to cover those cases where you cannot really sue. So itís a continuum running from criminal prosecution, down to abuse law suits, then all the way down to a blanket disinheritance prohibition. The criminal convictions are necessary for the more extreme cases, and to establish the principle that the blacksheeping and child exploitation are not tolerated. The abuse suits cover the cases which donít rise to the level of criminal prosecution. They also serve as a credible threat in order to negotiate compromise settlements. Finally, a disinheritance prohibition covers the cases where there is not sufficient proof to warrant an abuse suit. Only if we have all three levels of redress in play, will our society finally accept the premise that you cannot have children simply so that you can use them in order to gain an adult identity. Only when we have enforcement at all three levels, will our society finally accept the premise that you cannot exploit children. Only then will we be able to establish outside intervention and outside protective measures.

Only when those of us who refuse to ďjust get over itĒ band together and use every means available to fight back, will we finally have social legitimacy. We must reject all forms of collaboration, and reject all collaborators. So if my involvement in this case results in the perpetrator getting a long sentence, then I am going to be boasting about this, claiming it as a trophy, as my first scalp.

I still have to conceal the facticity of the case. But here is what I can disclose right now. A follow up message sent to DA, redacted:

********

Just a follow up thought:

It was (2nd daughter) who gave us the most detailed testimony about (defendant)ís instructions on how to masturbate. Certainly he was getting off on this. He was trying to tap into the girlsí sexual experience and make it part of his own. But there was still much more going on. He was trying to prevent them from ever having sexual experiences not tainted by him. He was trying to shatter their sexual experience by making it abstract and alien. (2nd daughter) testified to (defendant) going on about how so long as she was not lusting after anyone, then it was not sinful. He was trying to prevent her from ever being comfortable with her own sexual desires. (defendant) was trying to make her warped like he is. He was trying to harm her. He was trying to make her feel that her sexuality was dirty, and to make her only be able to experience it in some dissociated state. And of course itís (defendant)ís own dissociation which makes him so harmful.

I am new to looking at this type of criminal case. I donít know how typical it is. I am hoping that this case might eventually lead to some legal reforms. Besides just charging the direct perpetrator, there need to be ways of also charging collaborating spouses. And the SOLís need to be extended.

I say that avenues also have to be opened up for civil litigation. (defendant) and (wife) believed that they could exonerate themselves simply by continuing their blacksheeping of (eldest daughter). This blacksheeping is the root of it; itís how the childís personhood is revoked. Once this has occurred, then any kind of abuse is possible. The parents will justify themselves simply by perpetuating the blacksheeping. (defendant)ís shameless attorney, is an example of this. It demonstrated that at least in the minds of (defendant) and his attorney, (defendant)ís actions were justified because of (eldest daughter)ís blacksheep status. Some go along with them.

The harm done to a child when they are designated as the blacksheep is beyond measure. You can tell that it has happened because there will be animosity. Unless the child had been designated as blacksheep, and unless their personhood had been revoked, then there would be no such animosity.

But most of the time, no criminal lines will have been crossed. So instead, redress has to come in the form of civil suits. We must learn to understand these cases and to recognize the ways the child has been used, so that there can be such law suits.

Still, there will be many cases where it is impossible to fully deconstruct the parent child relationship. So a good basic remedy then would be just to follow the direction taken by most of Europe, and prohibit disinheritance. Perhaps there might be some compromise out of court settlements where assets and cash are put into a trust fund. The parents may still be able to get some of it, if they can convince the trust executor that there is legitimate need.

Iím sure that persons like (defendant) and (wife) never imagined that they could be on trial. They did what they thought they could get away with. They justified it by the blacksheep status they assigned to both (eldest daughter) and (eldest son). Now they have perpetuated that with (defendant)ís defense.

If instead, they knew that they would get sued and lose, this would have served as deterrence. If they knew that the animosity alone would be seen as highly indicative of tortious abuse, then they would have had to stop and step back and look at themselves.

Keeping up appearances and measuring up to social expectations are everything to (defendant) and (wife). This is why it has been so hard for (defendant) to admit to all the he lost when he signed on to the arrangement. He has to hide it all behind screwy behaviors. If (defendant) and (wife) knew that the animosity generated by their blacksheeping would bite them back in a civil court and that their blacksheeping would not help them, but would instead be held against them, then they would not have done it. They would have had to turn to outside resources, like Family Systemís Therapy. Likewise, if our entire society no longer accepted the blacksheeping of children and instead held the parents responsible, then we would have to provide other resources to remedy problems. So as I see it, civil suits and a disinheritance prohibition are the way to create deterrence with a low enough bar.

It all still depends upon criminal prosecution though. The justification for the other remedies lies in the claim that something at least approaching a criminal wrong may have been perpetrated. So when clear criminal lines have been crossed, there must be prosecution, conviction, and long sentencing.

********

If it goes the way I want I'm going to be bragging to everyone I have contact with. I'm going to be bragging about how many years he is in prison for, and how I helped to put him there. I'm going to tell about all my communications with the DA, both in writing and in the court house hallway.

Most of the people who know the defendant are from his church. He and the wife were able to convince many of them that this case was a product of the excesses of police, and of the evilness of the eldest daughter, as well as the evilness of the non-Evangelical Christian forces of feminism and child protection.

I'll be explaining about all I've written to the DA, explaining the intense energy the defendant and the wife have invested in blacksheeping this eldest daughter, and how that was what originally
alerted me that there must be something to the charges.

I'll be explaining about how I wrote to the DA explaining that most all of the families in their church have a family blacksheep. Usually itís about drugs and alcohol, but if the black sheep is female itís also about sex. Itís whatever it takes to make the blacksheep expendable. The blacksheep is the designated scapegoat, because they are the one who can't subscribe to the denial systems.

It would be one thing if this were all just hypothetical. But this is a guy with an absolutely clean record and he stands to get over a decade in the state prison, and all that I'm going to be bragging about is what I actually did write to the DA. Iíll be responding to
every counter argument with, "Well what I wrote to the DA was ....." Itís different when itís already been done. I'm even going to be bragging to strangers on the street.
Maybe I am over estimating my own influence in this. So what though. My point is that I did not just lie on the couch and vent. Iím claiming responsibility for helping to put this guy away. Like all cases, this one is also political. Prosecutors, police, judges, and juries need to see that the public cares about such enforcements and that the public is able to see through defenses aimed at turning it back on the child. We arenít going to be able to take this to the next level until this happens.

Iíve been involved in a previous case where activists packed the courtroom solid, picketed in front of the court house, and made daily statements to the television cameras. This should have been handled the same way. But there was nothing. No one seemed to care.

Now that previous case was about something different and the activists were supporting the Defense. But still, those who care about this subject area must start to stand up.

The idea that familial exploitation only causes problems in oneís head is just another layer of extreme abuse. The issue is social and civil standing. You cannot retake social and civil standing by confessing to therapists, by reading pedagogy manuals, or by punching pillows. You canít get there by becoming well adjusted.

The only way to retake social and civil standing is to do it by force, by inflicting consequence, by becoming a guerrilla.

Commiserators are everywhere. They are worthless. They are worse than worthless. Iím calling for comrades. I want to organize and start striking at locations in North America and western Europe.


BO

When Awareness is Not a Choice
http://z6.invisionfree.com/awarenessnotachoice/index.php?

John Brown is celebrated at his grave site in Elba New York each year on May 9th
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

Here, Iíve even gotten an early response from another forum, one where the moderators create the appearance that off topic and meta are not allowed:

ďI gave up reading the rant, once again concluding that B.O. seems to be a very unpleasant person, far more unpleasant that the "evil" he/she is fighting.Ē

Top
#436890 - 06/04/13 09:16 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
victor-victim Offline


Registered: 09/27/03
Posts: 3351
Loc: O Kanada
BO!

i gotta say.
i like the way you think.
may i offer my encouragement.

i am an activist.
i put my life on the line for my beliefs.

talk minus action equals zero.
or as ernesto "che" guevara once said,
"Words that do not match deeds are unimportant."

i like to be strong and tough.
it gives me a sense of empowerment.
power feels good.
but i am careful...
power without control is tyranny.
control without power is futility.

i do not identify with the victim role.
i am the victor!

i do what i think is the right thing until i succeed,
or discover i am doing the wrong thing.
mission accomplished or mission aborted...
then it is on to the next mission.
i will persist until i prevail against pedophilia.

we are fighting a hidden disease that is genetic and contagious and pandemic all at the same time.
the disease is corrupted and complicated by secrecy and social stigma.

it reminds me a lot of vampires, werewolves, and zombies.
once bitten and infected, the victim is at risk of becoming a monster, or dead, or both.
immediate intervention and emergency attention are always required.

exposing and disclosing sexual abuse is a thankless task.
moreover, it invites persecution and ridicule.
but i refuse to hide my light in the darkness.
i will not turn from the sacred duty of saving and protecting as many children as possible.

i do not depend on others for validation,
although i have learned to accept and appreciate it whenever available.

just like trust and respect...
value has to be legitimately earned,
before you can give or receive it.

because of past experience, i do not completely trust any authority...
including therapists, doctors, police, government, et al.
i do not mistake friendly for friend.

i am very careful about what i reveal, and to whom.
i constantly reassess my own reasons, motives, intentions, posture, prejudice and purpose.
my mantra motto is... "always, ALWAYS, double check!"

that is just common sense.
but not very common.
it is also very difficult.

you are a true warrior, BO!

end the violence.
stop the violent.
break the silence!
save the silent!
do what is right.
fight the good fight.
it's win or die.
there is no "try".
BANZAI!

p.s. the best way to operate, in my humble opinion, is calm, courageous, and courteous.
although not always possible to maintain such dignity, that strategy gives the best results.

love your enemy,
respect the danger,
identify the hazard,
remove the threat,
contain the menace.

turn the other cheek,
but never turn your back.

forgive the criminal,
but do not condone, pardon, permit, or allow the crime.

by forcing consequences and punishments on the perpetrators,
you are doing them a great spiritual service.
they could be compelled to comprehend the damage they have done.
perhaps even acknowledge, apologize, and atone (if they have any empathy or humanity left).
this will help the victim, if they desire direct confrontation.
to save the victim and the perpetrator... that is a bitter/sweet double victory.

also...
whoever wrote this
ďI gave up reading the rant, once again concluding that B.O. seems to be a very unpleasant person, far more unpleasant that the "evil" he/she is fighting

is very ignorant. (as in... no knowledge or insight)

the "evil" you are fighting (CSA) is far more "unpleasant" than any "rant" ever composed by any "unpleasant person".

to discuss an unpleasant topic for proper positive purposes does not make one an "unpleasant person",
except in the eyes of those who wish to dodge distasteful dialogues.
you are a nuisance reminder to those who prefer to avoid action, evade effort, reject responsibility, and ignore involvement.

please do not allow any skeptics, detractors or critics to slow you down.

for what it is worth, i approve.
as do many others, i am certain.
_________________________
Victor|Victim

War
Love
Poetry

Top
#437004 - 06/05/13 06:47 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Thanks to victor-victim for the words of encouragement.

There is still a little bit more evidence I have to write to the DA about, in a follow up.

I'm going to conclude with this:

"
If this defendant were to go unpunished, than that would mean that more people would be able to harm a child of their own, and then blame it on the child. They will use a child to give themselves social legitimacy, so that they donít have to face the ways that they have been harmed and stigmatized. Then when this no longer works, they will demonize the child. So if this defendant were to go unpunished, then we would have more alcoholics, more drug addicts, more people on psychiatric medication, and more people who believe that they have an innate moral defect and need Salvation. Most of all, if this defendant were to go unpunished, we would have more people having children just so that they can use them."

Becoming Other

Freedom to Express
http://freedomtoexpress.freeforums.org/

Gimme Shelter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDxpdFKuGb4

Top
#437149 - 06/06/13 07:40 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
Victor-Victim,

I take particular note of your name. I too have juxtaposed the words victor and victim. I say, Victory not Victimhood! I say this because I've never gone along with the concept of "survivor". People will say things like, "I used to be a victim. I could not function. But now I have gotten my life together, so I am a survivor."

I cannot agree with this perspective. Inscribing a child with the self-reliance ethic is the primary claim to authority for the Family System. It's just a continuation of the primitive socius which inscribes with sharp stones and hot coals. The bourgeois family inscribes by withholding approval, and sometimes by physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.

The mother in this Christian Fundamentalist Case has not herself been charged. She is unhappy with her husband because he has not been bringing home the bacon and they have been living off the equity in their home by refinancing it. They may lose their home and they may still have a mountain of debt. This is her primary concern. She is not bothered by his sexual fondling of their daughters. She stands with her husband and is calling the girls liars. These are religious conservatives and so keeping up appearances is everything. She expects her daughters to accept this.

The most serious accusations against the defendant are coming from the eldest daughter. But this eldest daughter is also the one who has been the most harmed. She is the one of the three girls who most strongly believes in the self-reliance ethic. Though still in her early 20's, she is already married and her life revolves around the accumulation of wealth and property. While her testimony against her father is compelling, the Defense position is that her real objective is simply to throw her father under the bus, and then rescue her mother from this financial failure. This girl does seem blind as the the shortcomings of her mother, and it does seem like her anger against her father is in part because he does not bring home the bacon.

The mother's parents do not condone the molestations, but they also seem to be primarily offended because they see the defendant as a screwball, as someone who does not do what he should be doing, bringing home the bacon.

I'm convinced that one of the reasons it is so hard for adult children to sue their parents for damages is simply because most everybody is so much like their parents. So it will always sound like each side is accusing the other for failing to measure up to the same set of standards.

So if your parents and our society have convinced you that you must rely on yourself, that no one owes you anything, that you must learn personal responsibility, and that you must get your life together and prove that you are able to earn a living, then they have already won and you are a dog licking the hand that beats it.

So I don't see any advantage in being a survivor instead of a victim. At least with a victim, there is some chance that the victim might eventually fight back. But a survivor never will, they will practice Live and Let Live and Self-Reliance. They will denigrate anyone who still wants to fight back. So please, don't ever think of me as a Survivor.

If parents are unwilling to be honest about the choices they have in life, and instead try to hide and stay in denial, live in Bad Faith, and have children in order to give themselves defensible social identity, then the child will have to pay in every single way possible for what the parent's have given up. The child is being used. They are feeding off of the child. Eventually this will errupt in open animostity. The child carries the hopes and dreams of the parents, but it is also the child whom the parents scar in order to be able to stay in denial.

We need to learn to recognize this animosity and its origins. We need to protect children from being used in this manner.

If a child has been used in this way, they have then been so violated that their social and civil standing are irreparably compromised. You cannot just excise this like it were just bad memories or bad feelings. What has been done can never be undone. But social and civil standing can be reclaimed by finding comrades and fighting back. A Survivor would never do this. But a Victim who seeks Victory would. Social and civil standing are never going to be regained by confessing on the couch or by punching pillows. They are regained by forming a mobile band and vanquishing foes.

Becoming Other
http://freedomtoexpress.freeforums.org/

"A paranoid is one who knows the facts."
William S. Burroughs

6.6.44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQR2aptzEkE&list=PLAEC6C41C4295D53E

Top
#437442 - 06/08/13 05:26 PM Re: Speaking in Tongues [Re: Becoming Other]
Becoming Other Offline


Registered: 07/26/11
Posts: 67
Loc: follow early Alice Miller, Del...
More about victims and survivors:

When I was in high school they brought in an elderly man who had been interned in the Nazi death camps as a teenager. Two of his toes had turned black from frost bite and so he had had to amputate them with a pair of scissors.

He was a survivor though because he had made his peace. He accepted the world as it was, and he was not fighting to change it. He saw what had happened as a risk which is always there, but not something worth fighting to change. Very few holocaust survivors have ever sought compensation.

Alice Miller survived the Warsaw ghetto. She was not longer at war. She had made her peace. She didn't even seem to think much of the ghetto uprising.

They say that during the last years of his life, in exile in England, Freud was really depressive.

Not everyone was like this. There had been prewar Zionists who were fighting to establish a Jewish homeland. Not all of them were even religious. But they wanted a homeland, even if the environment were hostile. They knew that if they were to have it, then they would have to fight for it.

You will see the juxtaposition of Victim and Survivor many places. Its in books, its in the main promo video for the Jeff Anderson and Associates law firm in Minnesota, and its really strong on a particular forum in the UK.

Usually the transition from victim to survivor is presented as the central component of being able to live a healthy and successful life. Supposedly one is gaining a certain amount of perspective and distance. But also, one becomes part of the world as it is, and as we are expected to be. If fighting were a direction one could have gone, that juncture is now past. One is no longer suffering. People who are not suffering are not likely to want to fight.

It's in seeing someone who juxtaposes the words victim and victory in his online handle, that I have come to think about this more. Survivors are presented as people whose lives are in order. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and they gain peace and acceptance because of this. A survivor may see shortcomings in their parents, but they don't see there as being something so fundamentally wrong with our society that it is worth fighting over. Though they may see their parents as has having shortcomings and they may find fault with their methods, they have still submitted to the basic premises that Self-Reliance and Live and Let Live are not optional.

I am not a survivor. I do not accept Self-Reliance or Live and Let Live. I am a victim who is finding ways to fight back and I will not stop until I have victory. I look for places where I can strike. This is why I inserted myself, with zero invitation of any type, into this Christian Fundamentalist molestation case. I want nothing to do with commiserators and collaborators. I seek comrades who also want to make strikes.

Thanks,
Becoming Other

http://freedomtoexpress.freeforums.org/

Episodes 6 thru 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzOIn2WVAw&list=EC5DD220D6A1282057

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Moderator:  ModTeam, TJ jeff 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.