7/4/02
Children's Charities Sued for
Millions?
or
How to ruin a child's life with just a few words.
A few weeks ago a teacher related an incident to me the type of which has become
very common in recent times.
There is a rule in his school that mobile phones are not to be used in the
corridors or the classrooms.
Anyway. As he was walking along the corridor, a fourteen year old pupil was
coming toward him chatting unconcernedly on his mobile phone. The teacher raised
his hand and pointed at the phone. The pupil ignored him and continued to walk
past.
As he did so, the teacher put his hand on his shoulder to apprehend him and
to lecture him over the use of the phone in the building. The pupil wrenched himself round, shook off the teacher's hand, and said
loudly, "F''k off! Don't you touch me!" And stalked off.
Other pupils in the vicinity sneered. There was nothing that the teacher could do.
I commiserated. He shrugged.
"What am I supposed to do?" he said.
It's strange how times change, isn't it?
Thirty-six years ago, when I was that lad's age, I wouldn't have batted an
eyelid at being apprehended in such a manner by a teacher. Indeed, if I had
broken a school rule so blatantly, and so rudely, I would probably have been
pinned to the wall by the teacher, who would then, undoubtedly, have confiscated
whatever I should not have had in my hand.
And such an incident in those days would have caused no-one any
long-term real concern.
These days, of course, teachers are not really allowed to do such things.
They have been almost completely disempowered in this respect, which is partly why
there is so much bad behaviour in our schools and among our youth in
general.
But, actually, this isn't really the point I am aiming to
make.
My point is this.
The pupil with the mobile phone was not just being offensive for the sake of
it when he turned aggressively upon the teacher for putting his hand upon his
shoulder.
No. He was genuinely upset.
He was angry that the teacher had the nerve, firstly to apprehend him, and
secondly, to touch him.
He was angry that the teacher had the nerve, firstly to apprehend him, and
secondly, to touch him.
You see, he has been brought up in a world that has given him certain rights
and beliefs.
These include the 'right' not to be touched in a certain manner and by
certain people, and the belief that even the
mildest infringements of this 'right' is some justification for hostility, lack
of respect and retaliation.
But the young man's brain has also been brought up to FEEL 'assaulted'
or 'abused' by such an innocuous action. And this is now exactly how the young man does feel as the teacher tries to
apprehend him. He feels as if he has been abused!
This is not an act or a trick by the young man. He genuinely
feels abused. Yes, in this case, for sure, he probably exaggerated his response
somewhat, for hostile effect - well, maybe not - but there is little doubt that he
really felt abused and 'defiled' in some
way.
And, had he been black (the teacher was white) or a girl (the teacher was a
man) then the insult and the injury that were genuinely
experienced might well have been much worse.
It is strange how a touch on the shoulder can lead to such a different
response, and to a different feeling, between two individuals - i.e. me,
thirty six years ago, and this 14 year old of today.
this is how 'psychological' and 'emotional' pain
actually develop
Strange it might be, but this is how 'psychological' and 'emotional' pain
actually develop. They crawl along pathways as the human grows and they develop right
throughout life. And the pathways that they follow even after trivial physical instances
such as these are based almost entirely on the 'propaganda' of the environment
in which the individual is brought up.
There are times, however, where surprising or 'strong' experiences can
suddenly alter the way that people might react to the same conditions. For example,
being mugged and assaulted in the street at night can completely change one's feeling for the entire neighbourhood and all
of its inhabitants.
And it can do so immediately.
On the other hand, discovering one day that the
grouchy old man next door is a kindly old soul who lost his wife and four
children ten years ago might alter completely your attitude toward the fact that he
rarely says Hello to anyone.
And the same is true for many of the negative feelings and the emotional
pains that people experience.
They mostly crawl along pathways - but they can suddenly be made to alter
course if some highly-significant event or change in credible 'information' suddenly
occurs.
But this does not make them any less real. And they can really hurt.
Here is an example of this.
Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child's
life.
Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child's
life.
What you could do is this.
You pretend to be very concerned about the child, and continually demonstrate
what a trustworthy and credible person you are, and you tell the child, with
full solemnity, sadness, and seriousness, that the little brown mole on the
child's back is a malignant cancer. You then go on to describe, on a daily
basis, how painful and how damaging this cancer is going to be for the child.
The fact that the mole is utterly benign, and causes no sensation at all, is
completely irrelevant. If the child is successfully convinced about it being a
malignant cancer, and absorbs from you all the horrors that such illnesses entail, and,
further, if the child is reminded about this constantly, you will certainly destroy his
future well-being to a very large extent.
And yet this is the very kind of thing that the abuse industry does to
children and adults, particularly over sexual matters.
In the case of adults, consensual sex can later be made to seem more like
rape, and, in the case of 'consensual' child sex abuse, the incidents can later
be 'interpreted' similarly, or, more commonly, simply as malicious acts of something akin to a
form of psychological violence.
And, in both cases, the victims can easily be led to believe that their respective moles are
malignant cancers - 'psychological cancers' - with all the pain and misery that this gives rise to.
However, while it is definitely not a good idea for children to be
sexualised - e.g. see Delay Delay Delay
When it Comes to Sex - because there are many negative aspects to children engaging in
'consensual' sexual activities, the truth of the matter is that psychological trauma is not one of them.
And I must stress here that I have ONLY been talking about 'consensual sex'.
Where 'psychological trauma' does appear to occur following 'consensual' sex, the
major cause of it seems mostly not to derive directly from the events themselves, but from the way in which influential
others respond to them. If these give out the message that the mole is a
malignant cancer, then the emotional damage can be very great indeed.
It can be positively enormous.
And, quite bluntly, the fact that so many adults in the western world still experience
severe emotional discomfort - even anguish - arising from their own 'consensual'
acts decades ago, as children, is not only damning evidence with regard to how
ineffective their personal 'therapy' has been, it is, in fact, the direct result of the
abuse industry having inflicted relentlessly upon them the view that their
psychological moles
are malignant cancers when, in fact, they are not.
And I must stress again that I have ONLY been talking about 'consensual sex'.
However, when it comes to non-consensual sex or unwilling and forced sex, the
negative consequences that arise from the antics of the abuse industry are even
worse.
Imagine, for example, the terrible effects on those with cancer if cancer
charities persisted in deluging the nation with highly-inflammatory and
emotional adverts showing the most appalling cases of suffering and trauma in
patients who had ONLY particularly debilitating forms of cancer. Not only would all
those with any cancers have their lives completely poisoned, damaged and ruined by
such antics, even those who had no cancer at all would live in conscious and
unconscious dread of it all.
But this is exactly the sort of thing that children's charities do to the
population in order to obtain their funding.
the long-term psychological
problems ... MOSTLY arise from the self-serving shenanigans of the very
people who claim to be so concerned about them
With regard to 'consensual' sex, there is, if you like, no
directly resulting 'psychological cancer'. With regard to non-consensual sex there is. But, in both
cases, the long-term psychological problems that ostensibly arise from such
things MOSTLY arise from the self-serving shenanigans of the very
people who claim to be so concerned about them. Indeed, for the MOST part, they
are the primary cause of the cancer. And, further, they are also mostly the ones
who perpetuate its ill effects.
And, with the help of the most highly professional and most effective emotional manipulators in the
land - found in the advertising industry - they are very effective in causing
and maintaining an enormous amount of emotional pain throughout the entire
nation.
And when it comes to the UK's National Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, MOST of the money that it actually gets from
the donations inspired by its huge advertising budget does not even go toward the protection
of children. It goes to the media folk in the advertising industry and to
accountants and solicitors, and what have you..
It is the most pernicious, widespread and lucrative of scams.
But it is not just in the area of sex abuse that the public is injected with
destructive psychological viruses from the abuse industry. The psychological
space of the entire nation is very much taken up by even more abuse in relation
to matters like domestic violence and child assault.
But the very same principles apply. And psychological matters for everyone
are simply made much worse by the continual onslaught.
One reason for this, of course, is that persistent
heavily-emotional psychological attacks through the media or through
'therapists' force people to live through such experiences over and
over again (whether or not they have actually occurred in real life) and, in the
case of real victims of abuse, to re-experience all the pain of real events
that truly went before.
And, indeed, for example, the NSPCC received
numerous complaints from abuse survivors when they started their highly-charged
Full Stop advertising campaign purportedly in an attempt to stop all child
abuse.
Every time you focus on the photo of your deceased loved
one on the mantelpiece, you're back to being glum.
But every time you focus on the photo of your
deceased loved one on the mantelpiece, you're back to being glum. Whenever you
remember how hard he or she hit you that night, you're back to being glum. And being
continually bombarded with highly-charged material that encourages you
constantly to grieve, or to feel guilty for not doing so, or to feel anger and
vengeful, when it comes to painful matters from the past, is a recipe for utter
misery.
It is surely not surprising that so many people in the west are so depressed,
angry, lonely and anxious despite the fact that they should actually feel much safer
and far more comfortable than all other peoples ever to have existed.
But what
can one expect given that huge talents and resources are continually being
directed toward ensuring that people feel exactly this way? - and especially
those who were once victims of abuse.
And, if all the above was not enough, there is the question of the way in
which men, and fathers in particular, are forever being targeted, demonised and
turned into objects of fear and hatred by the abuse industry. Thus, for example,
while the children's charities know that the objective evidence clearly shows
that women are, by far, the main perpetrators of physical assault upon children,
nevertheless they continue in their advertising to portray the main perpetrators
as being men.
Thus, yet again, the people in the abuse industry are to be found manifestly
deceiving, manipulating AND DAMAGING the population simply in order to feather their own nests.
The personal view of many people, including myself, is that the antics of the
NSPCC and Saatchi and Saatchi have very severely damaged the emotional
well-being of victims of abuse, they have infected the country with hostility,
suspicion, hysteria and hatred, and
they have horribly demonised men and fathers in the eyes of all.
One day soon, the public, and men especially, will wake up to their game. And
when it does, the time will be ripe for the men's movement to step into the
forefront of helping their victims to prosecute and claim substantial damages from the people
and the businesses concerned.
I started this piece by pointing out how even
a physically innocuous gesture by a teacher can nowadays result in pupils
genuinely feeling abused because of the way in which the propaganda of the day
keeps telling them that this is how they should feel.
But when it comes to all sorts of emotive
experiences - and not just the negative ones such as those to do with abuse -
the same principles apply, and just as strongly, though we often find it very
difficult to appreciate this.
We have been trained to see this kind of suffering completely
differently depending on whether the victim is a man or a woman.
For example, despite all my strenuous efforts
to be angered at ALL Bobbit jokes, some of them I find very amusing. Indeed, the
whole nation can quite happily laugh at the idea of men's penises being cut off
while the idea of hacking away at female breasts does not commonly bring about
the same response. We have been trained to see this kind of suffering completely
differently depending on whether the victim is a man or a woman.
And so, my point is that even our sense of
humour is DEEPLY affected by the 'propaganda' that invades us.
For some people, the killing of foxes in
fox-hunts is an emotionally intolerable enterprise. For others it has no
significance at all.
For some people, when a relative commits an act of
terrorist suicide in furtherance of their cause they are filled with joy
and pride. For others, the very thought fills them with horror.
If a Nazi merely spat on a Jew, one imagines that the
Jew might have considered that he'd had a good day! But had it been the other
way round, the Nazi might have felt so defiled that his whole week was
effectively ruined.
The way that people emotionally experience situations
depends very much on the ideas with which they have been indoctrinated.
This is what the highly-reputed child
development expert Rudolph Schaffer says.
'It has become apparent that, there is no
direct relationship between age and the impact which experience has on the
individual, that young children are not necessarily more vulnerable even to
quite severe adversities than older children, and that considerable variability
exists in long-term outcome.'
The one variable that does help to predict
how a traumatic event might impact on children is how the adults around them
cope with it.
the EVENTS themselves are of no real significance when it
comes to long term psychological trauma.
What Professor Shaffer is saying is that the
EVENTS themselves are of no real significance when it comes to long term
psychological trauma. What might cause such trauma, however, is the way in which
important and significant others react, and continue to react, to the situation.
Or, as a child expert working as a
Senior Departmental Head for the social services said to me not so long ago, "You
know. If a child falls and grazes its knees, and there is blood, it is up to you
if the child feels any pain. If you tell the child it hurts, then it does, and
the child cries. If you tell the child that it doesn't hurt, then it
doesn't!"
And she was right. (She then went on to
explain to me her view that the attitudes of the social services and the
'professionals' involved in child care in her country were causing far more harm
to the children in their care than were the perpetrators of the abuse.)
Well, the NSPCC and Saatchi and Saatchi have
spent millions telling children that 'it' hurts, and, further, that 'it' has
long term negative psychological consequences. The messages that they keep
giving our children is that the moles on their backs will cause them untold
psychological damage. The truth, however, is that the messages themselves are
the causes of such damage.
Indeed, with the NSPCC's multi-million pound
annual advertising budget I could EASILY get the
nation's children to feel nauseous and ill, long term, whenever they caught sight
of what was once their favourite sweet. And I could easily make them believe
that sitting in a classroom all day was an act of appalling abuse.
And, before very long, the nation's children -
AND THE ADULTS - would GENUINELY feel sick whenever they encountered
those sweets, and they would GENUINELY feel much emotional pain because they were
forced to attend their schools.
I would also like to point out that the NSPCC
is very much at the forefront of demonising parents who have smacked their
children. This, together with the general disempowerment of teachers and parents
thanks to the fear that they now have when it comes to disciplining their
children is helping to cause monumental problems to society.
Many people who work for the same groups are
also very much involved in demanding secrecy with regard to the work that they
do, and they also employ intimidatory tactics to silence those who might simply
question them.
the abuse industry is a serious and highly injurious
cancer within our society
Thus, the abuse industry is a serious and
highly injurious cancer within our society in very, very many ways. It might be
doing some good at some level, but, overall, it is causing far more harm to our society and
our children than it is curing.
And it needs to be strongly challenged and
re-shaped.
|