posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:12 PM
I have really tried to stay out of this topic, for more than one reason, but damn people, this is the third thread in as many weeks on the same thing.
Getting old. While I feel that Tinkleflower has done a fabulous job at debating this issue in the context presented, I just have to throw in my bits.
Suzy, feel free to say whatever you want; at this point your words are like water off a duck’s back to me. You believe what you believe and you
stick to your guns and I respect that in a way, however you refuse to acknowledge the lack of evidence and this hurts your position. I don’t need to
say that this is not an issue of whether child abuse exists; it is a matter of the SRA and the implication of Masonic involvement that has drawn me
into it. Having said that, I have some information that I feel is relevant.
The controversy over the validity of repressed and recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) has been extraordinarily bitter. Yet data on
cognitive functioning in people reporting repressed and recovered memories of trauma have been strikingly scarce. Recent laboratory studies have been
designed to test hypotheses about cognitive mechanisms that ought to be operative if people can repress and recover memories of trauma or if they can
form false memories of trauma. Contrary to clinical lore, these studies have shown that people reporting CSA histories are not characterized by a
superior ability to forget trauma-related material. Other studies have shown that individuals reporting recovered memories of either CSA or abduction
by space aliens are characterized by heightened proneness to form false memories in certain laboratory tasks. Although cognitive psychology methods
cannot distinguish true memories from false ones, these methods can illuminate mechanisms for remembering and forgetting among people reporting
histories of trauma.
Eudaimonia: This is what I mean by “credible resources.” Mmkay?
So as you can see it is theoretically possible, but not probable that all these people spontaneously remember these horrible things. Then there’s
Corroborative evidence: what it isn't. True believers, as we already stated, offer four main "proofs" for SRA: (1) all conspiracies are
secret and unknown; (2) evidence against a story is evidence that a satanist planted false evidence; (3) only a conspiracy such as true believers
describe has the capability of destroying all the evidence; and (4) the very people who should be fighting this are part of it. To this can be added
(5) the firm belief that only therapists can tell that victims are telling the truth; (6) children (whether physiologically children or the fractured
child personalities of an MPD client) don't lie about such horrible things and no one would make up these horrific tales; (7) accused perpetrators'
refusal to confess show the depths of depravity to which they have descended; (8) non-determinative evidence validates the conspiracy (what a true
believer calls an abuse scar a skeptic calls an appendix operation scar); (9) individual occult-related criminal acts validate the whole conspiracy;
and (10) the conspiracy explains the abduction of thousands of children each year.
Trying to disprove a negative. In addition to these ten methods of support for SRA conspiracy theories, true believers often demand that
doubters disprove their theory. That is, the investigator is required to adduce overwhelming, unequivocal evidence that the conspiracy can't possibly
be happening or else the true believer will consider his own view vindicated. This matches the absurdity of a man, charged at random, having to prove
he didn't kill a murder victim last January 24. Fortunately, our justice system is based on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. In
the same manner, the more reasonable theory should be adopted unless there is overwhelming evidence in favor of the more sensationalistic. The
"evidence" in favor of SRA conspiracies is negligible, not overwhelming.
Conspiricists' fallacies. Logical examination of each of these ten "proofs" quickly reveals their fatal flaws. While conspiracies are
certainly secret, they cannot continue to exist and function in society without leaving a trail. For example, the FBI may not have known how extensive
the Mafia's network was until years of painstaking investigation and the confessions of some members, but the Mafia left plenty of physical evidence
in the form of bodies, bullet holes, arson cases, beatings, and a host of other illegal activities. No one has found Jimmy Hoffa's body, but at least
there is evidence that he existed. Statistically, such an invincible secrecy is impossible. Let's say there are 100,000 adult survivors. They
represent only a small subgroup of the conspiracy. They are the ones who were not killed, who eventually escaped the control of the cult, who got into
therapy, who "remembered" their abuse, and who then were willing to tell about it. If we peg the average number of abusive events per survivor at
fifty (a conservative figure), that would give us 5,000,000 criminal events over the last fifty years in America alone. And not a shred of
Hmmm... doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. And I’m not the only one, either:
...The more rigorously Medway searches for satanism, the less of it he finds. Even in 19th-century Paris - the place where many of us think satanism
"really existed", as in J K Huysman's novel Là-Bas, with its notoriously authentic Black Mass scene - satanism turns out to have been largely the
invention of a journalistic fraudster named Leo Taxil...
...the real meat of Medway's book is much more serious: the recent "satanic abuse" scares. It was a Canadian husband-and-wife team - Lawrence and
Michelle Pazder, therapist and patient respectively - who launched the notion of "ritualised abuse" in 1980, building on Michelle's alleged
recollections of satanism in their book Michelle Remembers. It all went with the now discredited craze for "recovered memories" of child abuse. The
combination of Christian fundamentalism and Oprah Winfrey-style psychotherapy was hugely powerful, and before long there was no stopping the black
Stories began to circulate of women who were "breeders" or "brood mares", producing unrecorded babies and foetuses purely for satanic purposes. A
man named Mike Warnke maintained that satanists carried out 2 million human sacrifices a year in the US alone. After telling the tragic story of a
little boy named Jeffy, Warnke would hand out envelopes to collect money "for all the children like Jeffy", which brought in around $800,000 in
1991. The year before, the Bishop of Oxford had told Radio 4 listeners that by the year 2000 satanists would be sacrificing one baby per minute.
Another informant revealed that satanic MPs were carrying out human sacrifices in the House of Commons.
...Medway is, of course, not denying the reality of child abuse, but he convincingly refutes its ritualistic occult role within some nebulous thing
called satanism. In fact satanism does exist, after a fashion, in the relatively respectable form of the Church of Satan. Founded in 1966, it is
sufficiently recognised to have conducted the service for at least one American military funeral. But the church's creed - basically one of
materialistic self-interest, a sort of Ayn Rand philosophy with horns on - has nothing to do with abusing children. The whole business of satanic
child abuse has only arisen with the recent hysteria about child abuse in general, in a neat instance of what can only be called demonisation.
Medway shows that religious fundamentalists have done far more practical harm than satanists, with low-church exorcists having a particularly bad
record. Throughout this book, highly entertaining stories go hand in hand with far less amusing ones. A scare story about demonically possessed pets
(possibly purchased from satanist pet shops, for which we should all be vigilant) occurs amid reports of exorcists gouging a woman's eyes out,
holding a three-year-old over a fire so she could feel "the heat of Hell", forcing a crucifix up a girl's nose so it entered her brain, and hitting
another "possessed" child around the head with a block of concrete.
In its distinctive way - altogether less Pulitzer-winning in style, more English, more eccentric, somehow more homegrown - this book is an occult
counterpart to Ethan Watters and Richard Ofshe's demolition of "recovered memory syndrome" in their milestone study Making Monsters. Medway
occasionally lets himself be diverted into trivia, but Lure of the Sinister is a sane, impressively researched and important study that decisively
bangs another nail into the coffin of "satanic abuse".
Let me reiterate something: A lack of sources and proof does not constitute proof. You want people to believe you, dig up stories that support your
position; not just stories, but studies. Case studies, investigations, psychologists’ reports on patients and their experiences; credible
information – not some Bible-thumpers’ web site, claiming as fact what they cannot even reasonably
demonstrate to be so, much less
[edit on 8/26/05 by The Axeman]