“Richard Noll PhD, a clinical psychologist, is Associate Professor of psychology at DeSales University. He is best known for his research and scholarship in anthropology and the history of medicine and psychiatry on topics such as shamanism, spirit possession, mental imagery and visions, vampirism, Carl Gustav Jung, and dementia praecox/schizophrenia”. – DeSales faculty directory
Quest for a ‘holy grail’ -
I was working on an essay about psychiatrists and psychologists who, during the Satanic Panic years, apparently invested a lot of time & energy playing amatuer forensic detective – formulating their own theories about hypothetical satanic ritual abuse & mind control cults and how such cults might operate, then covertly soliciting statements that could be taken as validation for one or another aspect of their theories, from their patients, under the guise of collecting “life history”, or ordinary talk therapy sessions. I was googling various combinations of “psychiatrist”, “satanic cult”, “ritual abuse” and “roleplay detective”.
And there it was…the title of an article, seemingly promising something I had fervently longed for over several decades, but never believed would actually be written in my lifetime: “When Psychiatry Battled The Devil”, by Richard Noll, Ph.D ! But could/would this article really be what I wanted & needed it to be – an insider’s accounting of the history of satanic panic within the psychiatric profession? The link was tohistorypsychiatry.com, a blog about the history of psychiatry – excellent! Clicked on it and read the summary; “Psychologist Richard Noll has just published an article in Psychiatric Times on the Satanic ritual abuse panic of the 1980s” – BINGO! and then; “Noll chronicles how major figures in American psychiatry and clinical psychology played a role in what today is acknowledged to have been a moral panic that damaged the reputations and led to the imprisonment of a number of innocent individuals”. Fantastic! Written by a Psychologist who was literally “in the midst of things” as they went down, and published in Psychiatric Times, even. Perfect!
So I clicked the link to Noll’s article on Psychiatric Times, and…got nothing. Noll’s article wasn’t on the Psychiatric Times site, nor was it to be found on any other site, as my frantic googling revealed. It was gone, perhaps locked behind a ‘subscribers only’ wall on the Psych Times site, and I would never get to read it. Glimpsed one of my holy grails, only to have it vanish out of my grasp. Aargh!
#1 in a series, analyzing stupid theories about mythical Satanic Ritual Abuse cults and how these theories relate to satanic panic.
Theories about mythical destructive Satanism and Satanic Ritual Abuse cults fall under several categories. Today’s stupid theory is about molding Satanic servants through child abuse, and is brought to us by the infamous quack therapist and SRA theorist Dr. Catherine Gould.
Gould claimed: “The [alleged SRA victim] children are really being abused for purposes of indoctrination. The Ritual Abuse of children is at bottom an attempt to develop human resources for the [SRA] cult. Develop children who have had so much abuse and so much mind control that they will be maximally beneficial to the cult in a whole variety of areas”.
Gould is here postulating that secret Satanic cult members run or infiltrate day care centers, schools or other child care/ child services institutions, gaining access to and control over a pool of very young children. The cultists dress up like stereotypical Hollywood satanic cultists and involve the children in elaborate ceremonies involving worship of Satan, as a deity superior to & more powerful than Christ-Jehovah. During the course of these ceremonies the children would be subjected to all manner of sexual violations and assaults, would be forced to drink urine and eat feces, would be physically tortured in a variety of ways and would be psychologically tormented by being forced to murder pet-animals or another child – preferably a newborn infant. The ceremonies would be filmed and sold on the child pornography market.
Gould states that the ultimate purpose of all this calculated abuse and torment is: “to develop children…that will be maximally beneficial to the cult, in a variety of areas”. Gould’s concept – this theory that Satanic cultists could and would use horrendous physical, sexual and psychological tortures, inflicting severe physical pain and psychological trauma, to “develop children” who would be “maximally beneficial” to the cult – is self-evidently ludicrous and STUPID.
Abusive mistreatment of children, intentionally inflicting suffering and trauma, cannot have any constructive impact on their development, it can only have a destructive impact. The consequences of the maltreatment Gould postulates the hypothetical small children suffering, would be very serious. Brain development would be stunted, emotional and intellectual development would be retarded, and physical development could very well impaired also. The abused children would develop severe physical and psychological dysfunctions, as Gould herself describes elsewhere. Some of the alleged long-term consequences of Satanic Ritual Abuse, according to Gould and other self-professed experts on the subject;
– Panic attacks
– Uncontrollable crying
– Uncontrollable rage
– Eating disorders
– Suicidal thoughts and impulses
– Somatic symptoms
– Intrusive thoughts
– Addictive behaviour
– Over-reaction to minor stress
– Sleep disorders
– Extreme mood swings
– Attraction to high risk behaviours
– Random attacks of depersonalization or amnesia
These hypothical child victims would not be, and would not develop into, high functioning individuals. They would not function at an average level. If they were functional persons at all, they would function at the lower ends of any assesment spectrum. They would experience serious impairments of various kinds and would probably require assistance just to carry out daily routine tasks. How could these traits and challenges possibly make the children or the adults they will become, “maximally beneficial” to a Satanic cult? Gould states that the ultimate goal of the mythical SRA cult would be: to gain as much control over America (and other countries), as possible. And they are going to fulfill that goal with an army of severely impaired & dysfunctional individuals? Gould theorizes that there are SRA cultists in every profession and throughout all governments and government agencies. These severely traumatized SRA victims are going to be the cult’s doctors, psychiatrists, police cheifs, miltary commanders, corporate CEOs and laboratory scientists? Nonsense!
The SRA child victims, as Gould theorizes them, wouldn’t even make satisfactory sex slaves or slave labor – they would be constantly, uncontrollably, dissociatively “blanking out”, getting lost, making mistakes, failing to carry out orders, flying into random rages, getting violent when they are supposed to be passive, being withdrawn when they are supposed to be active & alert, etc, etc,. At best, they would be minimally beneficial to the cult, or to anyone else for that matter.
There would obviously be alternative methods for training genuinely high functioning & obedient cult members, methods that would be far less trouble and less risky to carry out. It’s just not conceivable that a secret Satanic cult – competent, powerful and efficient enough to evade all detection and apprehension – would carry out the child abuse plots that Gould describes, with the motivations that she postulates. Her theory is preposterous and frankly…STUPID.
I didn’t care much for his acting in television shows or movies, but I like him when he’s just being himself on a talkshow or an interview. He strikes me as very ‘real’ and genuine, for some reason.
I particularly like Tom Arnold when he’s talking about his childhood sexual abuse experience. He says that, from the ages of 4 to 7, he was repeatedly sexually abused by a 19 year old babysitter. Arnold’s accusations against this person haven’t been validated through a trial and criminal conviction, but nevertheless I don’t have a problem believing in the truth of what he claims took place.
I believe Tom Arnold’s child sex abuse victim narrative.
I don’t have any problem believing that the overwhelming majority of convictions for sex crimes against children, sex crimes against women, and sex crimes against men, are valid and that the testimony of the victims was honest and truthful.
I have serious problems, however, with demands that unconditional belief must be extended to any and all sex crime victim claimants. I found a moderate version of this demand in a discussion about memory science by Carol Tavris, which will serve for a simple illustration of this demand rant: “One of the bright, glaring, non-negotiable truths I have learned, though, is to believe survivors. Believe them, even if they don’t remember everything. Believe them, even if they remember almost nothing. Believe them, even if the person they say raped them seems like the nicest person in the world to you. Believe them, even if it shatters your whole world to do so. Believe them, even if they don’t want to share details, or press charges, or ever talk about it again. Believe them, even if their story sounds implausible to you.”
No. I’m not willing to accede to such demands for unconditional belief.
But, why not? Why not grant unconditional belief to any and all sex abuse victim claimants? Superficially, at least, extending unconditional belief would appear a simple act of kindness & generosity – one that would cost me nothing and seemingly could do me no harm. So…if I’m really sincere about believing that almost every sex crime conviction is valid, if I can extend belief to Tom Arnold even without the evidence of a supporting conviction, why not grant unconditional belief to every victim claimant?
If you were an aspiring artist of mediocre talents, how could you ensure yourself at least modest sales of your work to some captive audience?
Apparently, one route would be through concocting an “extreme abuse survivor” life history narrative for yourself and then working tirelessly to promote widespread public belief in Satanic Ritual Abuse cults and satanic-nazi-cia mind-control programs. The more people you persuade to buy into your victim narrative, the more people will buy your mediocre works of art. Sell your victim narrative, and your victim narrative will sell your extreme abuse survivor themed artwork. This works particularly well if your continually insist that works of art prove the reality of whatever might be portrayed within them.
Right here, in this youtube video: “David Shurter speaks for testify project…” You don’t even have to watch much of it, Shurter makes the claim only 20 seconds in.
On his blog, Shurter now says that his father was not involved in cannibalism and any suggestion that Shurter said he was would be “so way off base”. But the evidence is right here for you to see and hear. Shurter says that his father was High Priest of a satanic cult operating in Omaha…”and as his son I participated in and witnessed cannibalism, blood sacrifice and murder at his side…”. He can’t even remember what lies he has told about his family & childhood – all the proof that anyone needs, to know that this man is a liar and a fraud!
David Shurter defends convicted pedophiles and slanders child victims!
This hypocritical fraud calls himself a child sex abuse victim advocate, which just makes my blood boil. He rants on & on in his blog postings about child sex trafficking being a huge problem and a terrible evil that nobody cares about but him, but IN HIS BOOK – “Rabbit Hole” – he calls convicted pedophiles Walter Carlson and Mark Andersen his friends and claims they were “set up” for wrongful prosecution by child prostitutes and their parents. Quoting from his book;
“It was also during Project Clean-up that Mark and Walt were charged with crimes against children, which I found to be ridiculous. Mark had invited three hustlers to spend the night on his living room floor and had either inadvertently or intentionally touched one boy’s butt. The boy’s parents tried to extort money out of Mark and failed, then turned to the police and pressed charges.”
“Suddenly, the Omaha World-Herald, whose owner Harold Andersen was reportedly involved in the Larry King/Franklin Credit Union scandal, began touting Walt, the shyest person I’d ever met, as the Pied Piper of Pornography, and Mark and Walt were proclaimed as menaces to society by the local media”.
“Having to buy a plane ticket two weeks in advance, I spent the next two weeks sobbing, waiting to fly back to Omaha to say goodbye to everyone in my life. Omaha media stories that week said David was killed by his roommate Mike James, for reasons unclear; John Joubert was convicted and sentenced to death; and Mark Andersen and Walt Carlson were convicted and sentenced to spend years in prison”.
“No real evidence linked Mark and Walt to any crime, but Omaha had become a circus dictating justice from a kangaroo court. The fact that the parents of the boy had tried to extort money from Mark before going to the police (which came out in court), was insufficient to save him and Walt from prison”.
Shurter calls himself an advocate for child sex abuse victims, but when his friends were charged with crimes against children, did he believe the children? NO! Even now, when he wrote this book, he dismissed the child victim’s disclosures as “ridiculous”. He goes on to refer to the three boys, who were 11 and 12 years old*, by the derogatory term of “hustler” rather than as child sex trafficking victims – which is what they would be, if they really had been prostituting themselves.
*[Quoted from Mark Andersen’s appeal, click on State vs Andersen link further down; “Mark G. Andersen appeals his jury convictions and sentences on two charges of first degree sexual assault and three charges of sexual assault on a child. The victims were three preteenage boys in Omaha, J.M., B.T., and S.M…Andersen at time of trial was a 38-year-old homosexual male; his alleged victims, J.M., B.T., and S.M., testified truthfully to Andersen’s sexual behavior toward them; and at the time the offenses occurred, J.M. and S.M. were each 11 years old, and B.T. was 12 years old.”]
He insinuates that because the boys were supposedly involved in prostitution, that would make them more likely to be lying about his good friend Mark Andersen abusing them! Some sex trafficking victim advocate he is – what a fraud! Shurter shows no understanding at all, that when an adult pays a child for sex that makes the adult guilty of child sex trafficking, and that the child is always victimized by such a transaction. He even commits the infamous sex crime denialist rationalization of minimizing the seriousness of the children’s accusations, saying that Andersen might have either “inadvertently” [HAH!] or intentionally “touched one boys butt” – but only one boy and he only touched it, he seems to be saying.
Shurter then goes on to slander the victim’s parents as extortionists, and dismiss the victim’s disclosures as payback for Andersen not paying the alleged extortion! He repeats this slander several times, even falsely claiming that it was established as fact in the trial.
Most outrageous of all, Shurter dismisses all of the victim’s disclosures and testimony, and all of the child pornography seized by police, as: “No real evidence linked Mark and Walt to any crime”.
Well, that’s a crock of BS – as this appeals court ruling against Mark Andersen demonstrates with great detail and thoroughness –
“Each boy’s testimony corroborates the testimony of the other two. All three boys testified as to the defendant’s invitations to stay overnight and the fun places the defendant took them. Each boy related the sexually explicit content of the movies they were shown until late at night and testified of being awakened by the defendant’s sexual acts. Two victims testified that the defendant required them to remove all but their underwear before sleeping in his bed with him. This evidence establishes a “modus operandi” and helps corroborate the victims’ testimony. Andersen’s testimony in large part also corroborated the victims’, except he denied sexual misconduct”.
“Sexual assault on a child is an extremely serious and deplorable crime. Andersen’s suggestion that he should receive a lesser penalty because he chose as his victims children whom he claimed had already been subjected to sexual contact is abominable. Andersen, in his brief, points to nothing in the record indicating that two of his victims were, in fact, previously subjected by others to the type of sexual abuse that Andersen inflicted upon them”.
“Neither the trial record nor the presentence investigation reflects any mitigating factors justifying lesser sentences for Andersen’s criminal conduct as determined by the jury in its verdicts. If anything, considering the magnitude, number, and frequency of the crimes the record shows Andersen committed, and considering the impact upon the victims, as shown by the presentence investigation, more severe sentences might well have been justified”.
I’ve been noticing an aggressive internet propaganda campaign about Dissociative Identity Disorder, apparently being waged by certain members of International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), using mental health journalists – who happen not to be mental health professionals themselves – as ‘fronts’. Specifically, there are several quasi-interviews with Bethany Brand PhD – a member of the ISSTD Journal of Trauma and Dissociation Editorial Board – purporting to be concerned with “dispelling myths about Dissociative Identity Disorder”.
One example of this campaign can be found on the PsychCentral website. Titled “Dispelling Myths about Dissociative Identity Disorder” and written by Margarita Tartakovsky, M.S., it is located here:
This article by Margarita Tartakovsky portrays itself to be a matter of public health education, intended to ‘correct’ myths and misunderstandings about DID that “the public” is supposedly confused by;
“(DID), known previously as multiple personality disorder, is not a real disorder. At least, that’s what you might’ve heard in the media, and even from some mental health professionals. DID is arguably one of the most misunderstood and controversial diagnoses in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But it is a real and debilitating disorder that makes it difficult for people to function”.
Tartakovsky & Brand begin their myth and misunderstanding expose with an obtuse Strawman;
“Why the controversy? According to Bethany Brand, Ph.D, a professor of psychology at Towson University and an expert in treating and researching dissociative disorders, there are several reasons. DID is associated with early severe trauma, such as abuse and neglect. This raises the concern over false memories. Some people worry that clients may “remember” abuse that didn’t actually happen and innocent people may get blamed for abuse. (“Most people with DID don’t forget all their abuse or trauma,” Brand said; “sufferers may forget episodes or aspects of some of their trauma,” but it’s “fairly rare not to remember any trauma at all and suddenly recover memories of chronic childhood abuse.”) It also “pries into families’ privacy,” and families may be reluctant to reveal information that might put them in a negative light”.
Innocent persons being falsely accused of sex abuse crimes against children, based on false memories, is indeed a legitimate concern in our society. However, Tartakovsky and Brand are contending that DID is a controversial diagnosis/ research subject/ treatment specialization, because DID is alleged to arise out of the trauma of childhood abuse & neglect, and “families” [readers are intended to infer “abuse perpetrating family members”] don’t want information about abuse & neglect to be revealed.
The strawman here is an insinuation that the only reason for DID to be “controversial”, is that child abusers don’t want to get exposed by adult survivors of their abuse. Extend the insinuation…DID skeptics must be child abusers! The ongoing recourse to this type of slanderous crapola by DID therapists, researchers and ‘advocates’ only demonstrates that they possess no valid evidence for the legitimacy of DID and must resort to slanderous insinuations against those who expose the truth about it.
MKUltra subproject 136 could well be the most widely referenced of all the 149 subprojects developed under the auspices of “Project MKUltra, the CIA’s program of research in behavioral modification”. Search engines return hundreds of listings for “MKUltra subproject 136″, ranging from; government hearings reports on a variety of subjects, declassified US intelligence agency documents, academic research publications, scholarly investigative journalism , speculative journalism, exploitative-crank journalism, personal injury claimant stories, speculative psychology dissertations, etc. Surprisingly, very many of these diverse listings repeat the same or similar falsehoods, mistaken assumptions or deliberate misinformation, about subproject 136. If you believe that you have understood what MKUltra subproject 136 was about, what it’s purpose was and what was intended to be carried out under it’s auspices, you are most likely mistaken.
Read the document - if you haven’t actually read the subproject 136 proposal and funding application, (which is the only existing legitimate documentation about that project), then please accept that your understanding of subproject 136 could be based on inaccurate or fanciful hearsay. The subproject 136 proposal document will be posted on this article, for everyone to read. This is the same copy of the document that anyone else has ever had access to, redactions included.
Understanding what the document actually says – the subproject 136 proposal/funding application was written by an academic & researcher, who very likely cared more about documenting the theoretical underpinnings of his work than about writing carefully laid-out proposals. The wording could easily cause misunderstandings, if not read very carefully.
It is clear, however, viewing the document in its entirety, that the purpose of this project was to investigate ESP phenomenon and the possibility of teaching-enticing promising subjects to manifest control over whatever ESP ability might be latent in them – and not “to generate multiple personality disorder victims”, as some persons have falsely alleged.
At the start, the document delineates three separate studies;
1) group experiments,
2) developing methods for subjects increased control over latent ability, and
3) intensive study of particularly promising subjects.
Immediately after this, the document discusses the necessary correlation between student subjects in previous studies liking their teacher-experimenter and the acheivement of higher test scores. Having established this as a given, it would be absurd to interpret anything else proposed in the document as intentionally carrying the potential for turning the subjects against the experimenters, via some form of cruel or sadistic treatment.
Next, the document talks about “preliminary learning studies” in which “feedback of results and other kinds of reinforcement are utilized”.
Then come this famously misconstrued statement:
“That in working with individual subjects, special attention will be given to disassociative states which tend to accompany spontaneous ESP experiences. Such states can be induced and controlled to some extent with hypnosis and drugs”. Note that it doesn’t say will be “induced and controlled…with hypnosis and drugs”
There follows a discussion of the problems posed by random probability of positive results and subects “guessing habits”. And then…
“The data used in the study will be obtained from group ESP experiments which have yielded significant results, high scoring subjects (including control series and records taken after they ‘lost’ their ability, from special groups such as psychotics, children and mediums, and from psychological and educational tests in which answers are of the multiple [unreadable] ”
That statement, above, delineates 4 sources of data;
1) “[previous] group esp experiments…”
2) “high scoring subects…”
3) “special groups such as psychotics, children and mediums”
4) “psychological and educational tests…”
The four sources of data delineated above, clearly corresponds with the first study proposal: “group experiments”, the purpose of which was to establish whether or not a subjects test scores could be predicted using psychological or physiological scales.
“Psychotics, children and mediums” are simply listed as one of four sources of data.
The document does not say: “electric shock, drugs, hypnosis, and “psychological tricks” will be administered to three groups–psychotics, children, and mediums–to induce various states of dissociation, including multiple personality”, as “Franklin Scandal” author Nick Bryant has claimed. Carol Rutz, author of “A Nation Betrayed”, manipulates the meaning of several passages in the subproject 136 proposal with a deceptive contraction, blatantly constructed to support her personal victimization narrative rather than accurately report the wording of this proposal; “That in working with individual subjects, special attention will be given to disassociative states which tend to accompany spontaneous ESP experiences. Such states can be induced and controlled to some extent with hypnosis and drugs . . . The data used in the study will be obtained from special groups such as psychotics, children and mediums . . .”
At around this point in the proposal, there is the following statement;
“Learning studies will be instituted in which the subject will be rewarded or punished for his overall performance and reinforced in various ways – by being told he was right, by being told what the target was, with electric shock, etc”. Does this sound sinister, to you?
The author of this proposal is describing classic conditioning techniques for enhancing learning – presumably, learning to control their “innate psychic ability”. But what about this “electric shock” – is he talking about torturing people through repeated, maximum charge, electroconvulsive shocks? No. Either intentionally or through ignorance, people like Carol Rutz mistake the slang term for electroconvulsive therapy – “electroshock” – with “electric shock”. If the author had meant “electroconvulsive” shock, he would surely have used that terminology.
In the context of a “learning program”, taking place in the early 1960’s, the phrase “electric shock” clearly refers to use of the aversion therapy electric shock device popular at that time. You can read all about this, (outdated) approach to enhancing learning, here:
A small box run by a 9-volt battery, with tiny litte electrodes that are stuck to the calve of the leg or the thumb. NOT AT ALL THE SAME AS THIS:
The aversion therapy shock box can’t be used to “fry someone’s brains”, as electroconvulsive therapy is sometimes described. However, if used repeatedly, involuntarily – against the will of the person on the receiving end – that could indeed cause lasting trauma. Gay men who were forced to submit to aversion shock therapy “treatments” intended to cure them of their homosexuality, have reported this experience to be a hellish torment for them. There is nothing in this document suggesting that the experimenter intends to use “electric shock” learning reinforcement involuntarily.
* [Remarkably, the reality of this electric shock learning reinforcement program was accurately portrayed in the opening minutes of the original Ghostbusters movie, produced in 1984! The character Dr Venkman even says: “I’m studying the effects of negative reinforcement on psychic ability”.]
This discussion in the document clearly corresponds with the second study proposal: “developing methods for subjects increased control over latent ability”. There is no reason to believe that these “learning studies” were to involve the children or psychotics mentioned in reference to the first study, i.e., the group experiments.
Then there is this remarkable statement:
“…the main consideration will be the attitude and disposition of the subject. Wherever possible, every attempt will be made to tailor the tasks required to his preference and his estimate of good working conditions”.
“…tailor the tasks required to his preference and his estimate of good working conditions” – doesn’t sound like involuntary torment, does it? It sounds more like the subjects described here would be voluntarily submitting to the proposed techniques, because they want to enhance and control their psychic abilities & believe these techniques can do that.
And then another statement, famously misconstrued by some :
“The experimenters will be particularly interested in dissociative states, from the abaisment de neveau mental to multiple personality in so-called mediums, and attempts will be made to induce a number of states of this kind using hypnosis”.
A clear statement that attempts will be made to induce dissociative states, but using hypnosis – NOT through rape or torture or any other form of traumatic inducement. Nor is there any suggestion of exploiting dissociative states that might occur in a study participant, to implant a false identity, or generate an alternate personality, or cause the participant to unconsciously obey the will of the resarcher-experimenter for the rest of their life. There is no discussion of intention to create “Manchurian Candidates” or “mind controlled sex slaves” or multiple personality disorder victims.
This part of the discussion clearly corresponds with the third study proposal: “intensive study of particularly promising subjects”. There is no reason to believe that these “particularly promising subjects” were to come from the children or psychotics mentioned in reference to the first study i.e., the group experiments.
Deliberate misrepresentations about the wording of this document – for many years, the “CIA-satanic cult, trauma-based mind control” true believers have used excerpts from this document to create the impression that they have proof for their thesis – that the CIA and supposedly associated satanic cults systematically tortured little children, (including repeated, sadistic rape), not only to provoke dissociative states in the victims but also to generate full-blown programmable alter-personalities. They would never reveal the whole document, however. You can see why, now. It’s because the document doesn’t say what they’ve always claimed that it said.
“Franklin Scandal” author Nick Bryant said this:
“The Subproject 136 documentation discusses administering electric shock, drugs, hypnosis, and “psychological tricks” to three groups–psychotics, children, and mediums–to induce various states of dissociation, including multiple personality, which the researchers thought would enhance the subjects’ extrasensory perception. The Subproject 136 document demonstrates that the CIA was willing to carry out truly cruel and sadistic mind control experiments on children.”
That is false. This document does not describe any intention to abuse children.
Carol Rutz said this:
“My heart practically stood still the day that I read this [MKUltra subproject 136 proposal]. It described perfectly what I had remembered and journaled when I was taken in 1952 at four years of age from my grandfathers home, and delivered to Sidney Gottlieb of the CIA, Dr. Noe and Dr. Black. To use a child to investigate these possibilities I find so morally reprehensible, that I have a difficult time fathoming how anyone could even consider using children. They Did!!!! I am but one of the many children who were the CIA’s convenient experimental subjects. Because of our youth and the severe traumatization we were put through, these men felt we would never tell our stories; and if we did, they felt we would never be believed”.
That’s very unfortunate for her, to have claimed that this document “described perfectly what I had remembered and journaled”, when it is quite apparent that it does not support her victim narrative at all. She could only be grossly mistaken, or a liar.
The common and deliberate misrepresentation of Subproject 136 as CIA directed “mind-control” experimentation, intended to cause Multiple Personality Disorder in child subjects and turn them into mind-controlled sex/crime/assassination slaves, is very easily disproved. The persons who developed this proposal and presumably carried out experiments related to it, were unwitting recipients of CIA funding for this work, as the chart of funding applicant “status” in Colin Ross’ “The CIA Doctors” documents. These researcher/experimenters did not know that the ultimate source of their funding was the CIA, they believed they were being funded by an independent science promotion foundation. These researchers were not, therefore, knowingly conducting this study on behalf of the CIA - so they could not have intended it to serve any “manchurian candidate” production programs the CIA might have been planning or running. If they didn’t know the money was coming from the CIA, then they could not have been working directly under & for the CIA.
The identity of the author of this proposal, is not a mystery - who wrote up this proposal? Who’s experiment was this? We can never know – correct? Wrong.
*As he has passed away, and there is nothing that the conspiranoids can do to him now, there seems no harm in revealing that the author of subproject 136 was Stephen Abrams of Oxford University. This is discussed and documented in David Black’s ACID: A New Secret History of LSD, pg 55.
I’m tired of encountering this type of hypocritical bs, on various blogs and websites;
“There is no medically, or clinically, recognised diagnosis of ‘False Memory Syndrome’. The concept was invented in the USA by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), a group of ‘accused parents’ – mainly fathers – whose adult daughters had confronted them about sexual abuse in childhood. Having created this fictional concept of ‘false memory’ to defend themselves against these allegations, this group then went on to sell it to the media”. [CWASU false memory page]
…so I’m going to debunk it.
[I don’t belong to or work for FMSF, although I know people who do, so I won’t be discussing that organization or the meaning & validity of the term “False Memory Syndrome” from their perspective. This discussion will be about the inherent hypocrisy of Ritual Abuse therapists, advocates, and victim claimants, denouncing the idea that there might be false memories in RA-Mind Control victim narratives. It is my personal perspective on the subject]
Ritual Abuse therapists, advocates and victim claimants ‘invented’ the idea that false memories had been “implanted” into victimization narratives, many years before FMSF was founded in 1992.
They have all professed to believe in implanted false memories, since at least 1988, and continue to publicly promote belief that RA-Mind Control victim’s recollection of their abusers and abuse experiences may be tainted with implanted false memories, to this very day.
Ritual Abuse therapists, advocates and victim claimants invented the idea of implanted false memories, to explain away all of the demonstrable falsehoods uncovered in virtually every RA-MC victim narrative. Once RA-MC therapists and their victim claimants started parading their fantasies on major media, skeptics started investigating the validity of their statements and – surprise, surprise! – many of the alleged people, places and events in those statements turned out to be imaginary. People that RA-MC ‘victims’ claimed to have murdered or to have seen the murder of, were alive & well! Women who claimed to have bred dozens of sacrificial babies for satanic slaughter turned out to be virgins! Alleged secret satanic temples turned out to be never-developed empty fields, and so on & on. To explain all of these lies, therapists and victim claimants invented the idea of Satanic-Mind Control cults deliberately implanted misleading, false memories, in their victims minds. Here’s a typical explication of this ‘theory’ ;
“Memories of Satanic ritual abuse may be at least partially “screen memories” intentionally created by others. Some therapists and attorneys point to mind-control projects performed by the CIA and other groups in the 1950s and 60s. MK-ULTRA and Bluebird were two of the best known projects. Documents obtained by Alan Shefflin and others under the freedom-of-information act confirm that the U.S. government put some effort into creating “Manchurian candidates” who would perform dangerous missions for the U.S. government after they had been programmed through hypnosis and mind control. It is hypothesized that stories of Satanic rituals were implanted as screen memories in case these subjects began to remember being programmed. The idea behind this theory is that the ritual abuse memories are so far-fetched that nobody would believe them. They may have been created using staged rituals, Hollywood makeup, and props in order to plant a memory that would “emerge” later“.
It is very common to find some version of this false “screen” memory theory, on the very same blogs & websites where you find angry & slanderous denounciation of FMSF and False Memory Syndrome! The very same Ritual Abuse therapists, advocates and victim claimants promoting the idea that RA-Mind Control abusers routinely implant false memories in the minds of their victims, expressing outrage over any suggestion that false memories related to their RA-Mind Control victim narrative might have arisen, even accidentally, through their therapy. “How dare anyone suggest therapy-implanted false memories – they must be child abusers or apologists for child abusers, trying to discredit victim’s memories…trying to cast doubt on the reality of child sex abuse altogether!”
Ritual Abuse therapists, advocates and victim claimants don’t reject the concept of false memories in victimization narratives – in fact, they embrace it and promote it! – so long as they can find some way to make that concept support the RA-MC mythology they are evangelizing. Which is fine with me, until they start simultaneously accusing other people of having invented the concept of False Memories (and somehow, specifically to facilitate child abuse), and then denouncing that concept – the same concept that they profess to believe in when it serves their purposes – as a fiction!
Why would anyone believe anything that such self-serving hypocrites have to say, on any subject?
A UK man named Colin Batley was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment in 2012. He was alleged to have exercised a Manson-esque domination over three women; his wife Elaine Batley, Jacqueline Marling and Shelley Millar – who were all convicted of related offences in the same trial. Judge Thomas said:
“You set yourself up as the ruler of a sick little kingdom surrounded by three women who danced as your willing attendants regarding you as their master.”
The “head prosecutor” said; “The prosecution was able to show that Colin Batley was at the centre of this activity and it is right that his sentence reflects this.
“However, all of those sentenced today are guilty of horrific crimes and therefore it is also right that they have received lengthy sentences.”
All four were convicted of sexual offences involving minors, and the group was labelled a “sex cult” in press reports. Batley was accused of raping the victims – two boys and four girls – of forcing them to commit sexual acts with the women and each other, and of prostituting some of the victims to other persons in the community who were not members of the group.
Batley is said to have claimed: “I’m in a cult”, and to have controlled his victims in part through threats that “the cult” would murder them if they did not do whatever he told them to do. The ‘cult’, however, seems to have consisted solely of Batley and the 3 women – although one victim claimed to have undergone an involuntary initiation into membership in the group as a young child. She described this initiation as a brief lecture “on the occult” after which Batley raped her.
Some of the victims, who are all now adults, talked about Batley and the women being enamored of Aleister Crowley and some of his writings especially the scripture-poem called The Book of The Law. Batley is said to have professed that passages from Crowley’s writings justified his criminal and abusive activities. The group sometimes dressed in robes and read from The Book of The Law, and then they would disrobe and have sex, according to witness testimony.
Some blog commentators are proclaiming this case to be “the UK’s first real satanic ritual abuse crime conviction” and that “ritual abuse has been proven to be real”. Are these claims really justified?
To be fair — when considering the “expert” qualifications of the perpetually panic-stricken Dr. Randy Noblitt — one should take into consideration that the man’s doctoral thesis was, in fact, a work of Astrology. However, in a career made notable for unsubstantiated hysterical claims involving a preternatural conspiracy of Satan’s minions, his dissertation upon the Celestial Concomitants of Human Behavior may possibly be the most lucid work in Dr. Noblitt’s unquestionably disreputable bibliography.
I feel it important to make note of his dubious beginnings so one might recognize that this tin-foil hat Torquemada never, at any point in his professional career, seems to have become unhinged… he never exhibited a firm grasp of reality to begin with. Thus, when reading the barrage of lunacy attributed to “Little Knob” below, the question isn’t: where did this professor of Clinical Psychology at Alliant University go wrong?, instead, the question should be: how is it that this man ever became a professor of Clinical Psychology at all? And, worse, How is it that his testimony, as a man of Science, was considered favorably in a situation where personal liberties were at stake?
In 1992, at the height of a social hysteria now commonly referred to as “the Satanic Panic”, Dr. Noblitt — believing he could disentangle the coercive subliminal sounds of secret demonic code within popular music, as well as decrypt the hidden meanings behind seemingly mundane occurrences — testified for the prosecution, as an “expert” in the field of “ritual abuse”, against one Fran and Dan Keller, a couple accused of engaging in child abuse at their home-based day care center. With no physical evidence to support the accusations (which included claims of graveyard rituals and medically undetected limb transplants) the couple was convicted on the most dubious of testimony. The children themselves — ignored when they claimed they were not abused at all (as happened even in testimony) — were led by coercive and incompetent interrogations to produce claims of abuse which are nearly impossible to credit [see footage and analysis of one such interrogation embedded below]. Noblitt’s own fantastical testimony, of course, was no more credible than Noblitt himself. Continue reading →