“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!
Some Ritual Abuse advocates, satanic conspiracy theorists and self-professed Ritual Abuse survivors have heaped praise on former Nebraska Senator John DeCamp as a heroic defender of abused children, because he published a conspiracy theory account of the Franklin child prostitution investigation bristling with inferences that “people with wealth, power, and authority” are sick & twisted child rapists. But while he was a Nebraska state senator, John Decamp and his wife were accused of sexually abusing their little girl. [“The Franklin Cover-up”, pg. 63-65] Doesn’t that make DeCamp, by their own logic, guilty of being a child abusing pedophile? Actually, the idea that – for a parent to be innocent of abuse, the child must be a liar – is based on a false assumption. The accusation against the parent might not have come from their child, at all. As in the case of Senator and Mrs. DeCamp, the accuser could be another adult and not a member of their family, and that accusation could be – and was – declared to be false without making their daughter who never did accuse them, a liar.
John DeCamp was also a lawyer for an organization very similar to Ralph Underwager’s VOCAL, called the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center: “…which fights against false accusations of child abuse, and is made up of adults who have been falsely accused of child abuse”. [“The Franklin Cover-up”, pg. xxiii] John DeCamp defended people accused of sexually abusing a child, and as he himself described it, not only did he get accused abusers found innocent and set free, his role was often to interrogate the child accusers until they broke down and confessed to having lied!
Ritual Abuse advocates, satanic cult conspiracy theorists and satanic panic promoters profess to be the outraged spokespeople for abused children.
However, some Ritual Abuse advocates, satanic cult conspiracy theorists, self-professed Ritual Abuse survivors and other satanic panic promoters have confessed to & been convicted of all manner of crimes against children; molestation, sexual assault, child pornography, rape, and even murder.
JOHN TODD – aka John Todd Collins aka Lance Collins, was an evangelical testimonialist who popularized Illuminati and satanic cult conspiracy theories throughout America in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In 1987 has was charged with raping a young woman and molesting two children. Convicted in 1988, sentenced to 30 years. Died in prison in 2007. Despite being a child molestor and rapist, Todd is called a hero & martyr by Satanic Ritual Abuse & Mind Control conspiracy theorists who slander Underwager as “pro-pedophile”.
TONY ALAMO – born Bernie Lazar Hoffman, was an American evangelical and founder of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries. He was a prolific anti-occult, anti-catholic, anti-gay promoter of satanic panic in the 1970’s and ’80’s. Alamo was arrested in 2008 as part of a child-porn investigation and subsequently charged with transporting minors across state lines for sex.
“One girl told the FBI that Alamo repeatedly fondled her when she was 8, then “married” her in May 2000 when she was 9. She was still 9 when he took lewd photos of her and had intercourse with her, she said. He watched adult porn films with her in his bedroom, she added. A second girl said she was 12 when Alamo had intercourse with her. When she was 14, Alamo took her to California, where he had sex with her in motel rooms and at his California compound, she said. An informant told the FBI that she saw Alamo sometimes take more than one girl at a time to his bedroom, where he kept candy bars and a Barbie doll collection.” – SPLC, July 24, 2009.
Tony Alamo was convicted on 10 counts of transporting underage girls across state lines for sex, in 2009, and sentenced to 175 years in prison.
PAUL BONACCI – convicted at age 21 of molesting a 9 year old boy on three occaisions, Bonacci had a novel albeit offensive rationalization. He claimed that he had Multiple Personality Disorder, and that one of his alters was gay and therefore a child molestor! When the gay guy inside him took over, he would make Paul molest little boys, he said. Bonacci was diagnosed as MPD by the prison psychiatrist, after Bonacci related a pathetic life history of chronic negligence and abuse by older boys and men. Subsequently, Bonacci would relate ever more elaborate tales of victimization in child porn, prostitution and satanic abuse rings, to various interviewers. He also confessed to involvement in kidnapping missing 12 year old Johnny Gosch from Des Moines when he himself was 15, and subsequently raping the boy repeatedly on a rural property just outside the city limits. Bonacci was also interviewed by Dr Judianne Densen-Gerber, a self-professed expert on Ritual Abuse and MPD, while still in prison. She declared him a genuine MPD with “an extraordinary memory for detail”, which is interesting considering that episodic amnesia and problematic memory recall is supposed to be a necessary symptom of MPD.
“Meeting with Paul, I have spoken to several of his personalities. Three psychiatrists who have examined him concurred in the diagnosis of Multiple Personality Disorder, brought on by horrible, traumatic abuse when he was a child. My first act with respect to representing Paul Bonacci was to have him write down everything he could remember, about individuals who had abused him, from his earliest boyhood. An excerpt from what he wrote appears in Chapter 10. In that document and in Paul’s letters, his handwriting will vary, depending on which personality is in control.
Bonacci was sentenced to five years in prison in 1989, for molesting a young boy for whom he was baby-sitting. Apparently one of Paul’s homosexual personalities was in control of him during the incident, in which he briefly put his hand on the outside of the young boy’s pants, an activity stopped when a remorse-stricken Paul reasserted control…” – The Franklin Cover-Up
Despite being a convicted child molestor and confessing to participation in kidnapping & rape of a younger boy, Bonacci is called a hero & martyr by Satanic Ritual Abuse & Mind Control conspiracy theorists.
REVEREND JAMES BEVEL – James Bevel was a civil rights hero, but his train starting running off the tracks after he became involved with Lyndon Larouche. Judianne Densen-Gerber was friends with Mrs Larouche and involved in Larouche’s Schiller Institute. Not long after Densen-Gerber left Omaha, James Bevel arrived to lead the “Citizens Fact-Finding Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations of Children in Nebraska”, on behalf of the Schiller Institute, and as an advocate for imprisoned Paul Bonacci. The group distributed petitions seeking to reopen the Franklin Child Prostitution Investigation, but Bevel never submitted the petitions to the Legislature and left the state the following year.
“In May 2007, Bevel was arrested in Alabama on charges of incest committed sometime between October 1992 and October 1994 in Virginia. The accuser, one of his daughters, was 13–15 years old at the time, and lived with him in the Leesburg apartment. Three of his other daughters have also alleged that Bevel sexually abused them, although not with intercourse. Charged with one-count of unlawful fornication in Virginia, which has no statute of limitations for incest. His four-day trial in April 2008 included “testimony about Bevel’s philosophies for eradicating lust, and parents’ duties to sexually orient their children”. During the trial, the accusing daughter testified that she was repeatedly molested beginning when she was six years old”. – Wikipedia
Bevel was convicted and sentenced to 15 years.
JAMES and MARIE LAPPE – foster parents to 4 young children from the same birth family, the Lappe’s ran a therapeutic foster care home in Texas. Following a meeting of concerned parents, where Catherine Gould’s checklist of Satanic Ritual Abuse symptoms was handed out, the Lappe’s returned home full of satanic panic and proceeded to “diagnose” all of the children as SRA victims. They began subjecting the children to physical torments such as running up and down the stairs until they were past exhaustion, then demanding confessions of their parent’s involvement in the satanic cult and subjecting them to horrific abuse. Little Bobby Vernon, aged 7, refused to affirm the Lappe’s fantasies. He would not falsely accuse his parents of hurting him. Determined to force “the truth” out of the boy, the Lapp’s slammed his head on the ground over & over until they broke his skull. He died later in hospital. [I could be wrong about this. I had been led to believe that Bobby Vernon eventually succumbed to the injuries which apparently left him in a permanent vegetative state. I’m unable to verify his passing, however] The Lappe’s were subsequently found dead in their home from overdoses of prescription medicine. [According to some reports, James shot himself while Marie died of an overdose].
The Free Lance Star article, December 2, 1995, reporting that Bobby Vernon was left permanently vegatative, and the death of the Lappes, with background details:
Dr Bruce Perry’s version of these events, from his “The Boy Who Was Raised As A Dog” :
Despite being murderous child abusers, Satanic Ritual Abuse & Mind Control conspiracy theorists claim they were actually assassinated by the fantasized satanic cult, and declare them to be heroic martyrs!
Oh yes! Murderous child abusers, child molestors and rapists are heroes and martyrs to Satanic Ritual Abuse & Mind Control victim claimants and their advocates. That’s how little they really care about the wellbeing of children.
[I can’t be certain at this time, that Bobby Vernon has in fact passed away as a result of the life-threateningly extreme abuse inflicted on him by the Lappes. Regretably, there are more cases of children murdered by witch-hunting SRA true believers and advocates. See below]
#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.
One of the many falsehoods from which Satanic Ritual Abuse mythology is woven, is the pervasively repeated claim that mental health patients and others who allege a history of Ritual Abuse, therapists who treat Ritual Abuse claimants, and persons who “advocate for” Ritual Abuse claimants by evangelizing belief in Ritual Abuse mythology, are all continuously being harrassed and threatened by “the cult”.
“Active cult members continue to threaten and harm adult survivors in a multitude of ways in order to force them to remain silent, most are threatened with death should they disclose their ritual abuse, and many have seen those who threaten them murder others and thus their fears are justified” – Ritual Abuse propaganda site.
Also, Ritual Abuse and Dissociative Identity Disorder claimant-advocates sometimes allege that unnamed skeptical debunkers of SRA and DID have threatened them in some manner, supposedly out of desperation to “shut them up” and prevent them revealing “secrets” that could destroy the world’s ruling elites – if enough people were informed of “the truths” that only SRA-DID claimants can tell. Or some such fanciful nonsense.
Are these claims of living under constant threat of harm or even murder really valid? If they are not valid claims, why would these RA-DID claimant-advocates make up such stories?
The truth about Ritual Abuse patients and therapists experiencing threats – The Dilemma of Ritual Abuse; Cautions and Guides for Therapistsedited by George Fraser is an expensive and hard to get hold of book, these days, but well worth the expensive or trouble to obtain. Published in 1997, this book contains essays on a number of RA related topics, written by some of the foremost practitioners in the treatment of DID and SRA patients – not by SRA-DID skeptics or debunkers. Written by people like Dr Richard Kluft, and George Fraser himself, these essays reveal and document some very uncomfortable truths about RA-DID patient-claimants – truths personally observed and recorded by medical practitioners who likely treated more such patients than any others (any others who didn’t get sued for generating false SRA memories in their patients). Here is some of what they reveal:
SRA-DID patient-claimants, and/or their supporter-advocates,have been the people making threats against patients and their doctors! Richard Kluft provides some illustrative examples, on page 36:
“I had the further experience of receiving repeated threats on my life.For example, on many occaisions during a two month period when I answered my phone personally, a deep voice would say that I was getting too close to cult secrets and would be killed if I did not back off. Although these phone calls were extremely disquieting, after a brief period of serious concern I sensed a pattern in them. I confronted the patient I suspected was either making or instigating the calls. Although I got no admission or confirmation, I never received another threatening call”.
“On one occaision, an inpatient reported that she was receiving telephone messages from the cult instructing her to kill one of my colleagues and/or me…I arranged for the patient to be kept away from the telephone for a few days without the patient being aware of this intent. She continued to report receiving calls from the cult“.
George Fraser reports similar experiences. One of his patients claimed she was receiving threatening postcards, with “self-desctruct” mind-control commands secretly coded onto them, mailed from various foreign countries. Fraser became suspicious, and a close examination of the postcards revealed that the foreign postal-markings were faked! The patient had been mailing the doctored postcards to herself, confessed one of her “alters”.
Ritual Abuse and Dissociative Identity Disorder claimants themselves have been exposed as the real authors of the threats that they and/or their therapists received, in case after case – but other members of RA-DID “support groups” that many claimants have been involved with are also suspected of concocting and perpetrating elaborate campaigns of threatening harrassment against a range of persons in some claimants lives – including; their therapist’s or treatment facility’s other patients, friends, family members, clergy and community support services workers . Richard Kluft issued informed and insightful condemnations of these non-clinical Ritual Abuse victim claimant “support” groups and networks. From pg. 45:
“I am particularly wary of leaderless or peer-facilitated support groups for dissociative disorder patients and others who allege that they are survivors of ritualistic groups. I have tracked the course of more than a dozen of these groups over the years, and all but one were unmitigated disasters…the proclivity of these groups for overwhelming their members with one another’s traumatic material, excessive dependency, and unbridled requests for support and nurture…and the possibility that members will, under the aegis of group forces and their own vulnerabilities, come to believe that they too have experienced what others represent as their personal histories”.
“But I can share the personal observation that among those MPD (DID) patients and allegers of satanic ritual abuse whom I have treated, those who have networked extensively with fellow patients or allegers invariably take longer to treat than those who do not, and their treatment runs a stormier course. I currently refuse to treat patients who insist on participating in [such] potentially contaminating and countertherapeutic activities”.
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.
This is a review of “The CIA Doctors: Human Rights Violations by American Psychiatrists“, originally published as “BLUEBIRD: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists” by Colin A. Ross M.D.
Part One – Insinuation, manipulation, and lies
Immediately following the table of contents, this book has a page headed by a string of random letters and numbers, (ooo-eee-ooo! a secret code? what can it mean?), followed by yet another series of quotes from the MKUltra subproject 136 proposal, strategically chosen to be maximally suggestive of “mind-control” experimentation on child subjects. For the truth about subproject 136, refer to “MKUltra subproject 136 – the surprising reality revealed” article also on this site.
The next chapter is “Acknowledgements”, essentially an essay on “why I admire the CIA” by Colin Ross. I don’t share Ross’s fawning admiration for the CIA & its OSS predecessor. I think the OSS spent as much time & effort laying the groundwork for Operation Gladio and similar enterprises, everywhere they went, as they dedicated to actually assisting the fight against our WW2 Axis enemies. The CIA was an illegitimate organization from day one, a cadre of hopelessly incompetent, insanely paranoid anti-communists zealots, responsible for the slaughter of at least 100,000 non-combatant socialists around the world, (not counting all the millions of tragic, pointless military and civilian casualties of the wars they caused to occur), between 1947 and 2000. There was never any need to brainwash or mind-control the CIA’s cold-warriors, they happily committed a continuous process of ideological lobotomization upon themselves, of their own volition. All of the CIA’s leadership and black ops personnel, up to 1995, ought to have been tried for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, treasonous usurpation of American government policymaking powers, treasonous violations of American law, or treasonous violations of their mandated prohibition against domestic operations. In my opinion.
Next is a chapter on Operation Paperclip – the illegal recruitment and off-the-record immigration of surviving Nazis, with some knowledge or skill of use to the American military-industrial complex. That is very old news, of course. What was new, and interesting, was this frank admission:
“An unanswered question is whether any Nazi psychiatrists or mind control experts were brought over under PAPERCLIP or related projects”, and then this -
“There was a round of declassification of mind control documents in the 1970’s, which were the foundation of books published in the 1970’s and 1980’s. These documents and books did not examine the possible role of German PAPERCLIP psychiatrists in mind control experimentation. The subject remains untouched by scholarly and investigative hands, but is an essential part of the historical background”.
In other words, Ross doesn’t know if any Nazi psychiatrists or “mind control experts” were actually recruited to North America or not. He has no proof, no documentary evidence, that any such persons ever came here. This doesn’t stop Ross from insinuating that there ought to be evidence, that there surely must have been some such persons brought over to America, as suggestively as he can. This is a pattern repeated over & over in this book – hence the title of this review.
Another annoying feature of the book, is the constant repetition of the phrases; “mind control” and “manchurian candidate”, throughout the entire narrative – including sections where they have no appropriate relevance to the subject Ross is discussing. A rather transparent, low-tech “brainwashing” technique. I suppose, if you can’t actually prove the core hypothesis of your book, you can at least saturate the consciousness of your reader with buzz-words that will ensure they come away with an indelible mental association between “mind control” and whatever/ whomever you’ve discussed along the way.
The next two chapters present information about the Tuskeegee Syphillis Study, (on behalf of American public health agencies), and various radiation related experimentations on unwitting human subjects, (on behalf of American military researchers). Colin Ross is absolutely right in condemning these as horrific examples of unexcusably unethical research practices, and regretably these are not the only examples from that time period. The superfluous repetition of “mind control” and “manchurian candidate” are particularly glaring in these chapters.
The chapters on Projects BLUEBIRD and ARTICHOKE, as well as the further discussions about hypnotically induced alternate identities, amnesia barriers, and the relationship to MPD in this book, will be addressed in Part Two of this review.
Chapter 5: MKULTRA and MKSEARCH, contain statements by Colin Ross that are of particular interest and concern. On page 62, in a discussion of various MKUltra subprojects, Ross states: “Four of the MKUltra Subprojects involved research on children; 102,103,112 and 117….The fact that CIA funded research on children has not been documented previously. Given that the mind control research declassified to date is certainly an incomplete account of everything done, it is unknown whether other mind control experimentation on children was ethical or harmful. An unanswered question is whether children were ever subjects in Manchurian Candidate experiments”.
Here again Ross substitutes suggestive insinuations for evidence or proof, with the deceptive wording: “…other mind control experimentation on children…” In the following paragraphs Ross describes the four listed subprojects; 102, 103, 112 and 117 – preceded by this disclaimer: “The four MKULTRA Subprojects on children were benign and did not involve unethical experiments“. As Ross describes these projects, it is evident that none of them had anything to do with “mind control” experimentation. So, although it may be true that declassification of research which Ross defines as “mind control experimentation” is incomplete, the question should be – whether or not there had been mind control experimentation on children at all, and if so, whether it was ethical or harmful.
But only four pages later, on page 66, Ross totally contradicts himself : “Manchurian Candidate work was done under MKULTRA Subproject 136…The deliberate creation of multiple personality in children is an explicitly stated plan in the MKULTRA Subproject Proposal…”. What happened to : “An unanswered question is whether children were ever subjects in Manchurian Candidate experiments”, only four pages earlier? Does Ross know the answer, or doesn’t he? If it was unknown, unanswered, whether children were ever subjects in Manchurian Candidate experiments, on page 62, why is he claiming that children were the subject of Manchurian Candidate experiments on page 66? And, if MKULTRA subproject 136 involves research on children explicitly, why didn’t he include it in his list of subprojects involving research on children? Ross stated there were four such projects, and 136 wasn’t in his list. Is he now saying that there were five such projects? Or is this an admission that 136 did not involve research on children explicitly?
More importantly, these statements: “Manchurian Candidate work was done under MKULTRA Subproject 136…The deliberate creation of multiple personality in children is an explicitly stated plan in the MKULTRA Subproject Proposal…” are bald-faced lies!
How convenient for Ross, that he only reproduced a few select sentences of the subproject 136 proposal in his book – preventing his readers from immediately detecting this outrageous deception on his part. If those are the only portions of the proposal they ever do see, no doubt they will believe him! Fortunately, the complete MKUltra subproject 136 proposal is available on this very site, under “MKUltra subproject 136 – the Surprising Reality Revealed”, so anyone reading this review can confirm with their own eyes that Ross’ statements are false.
MKULTRA Subproject 136 is not about “Manchurian Candidate work”, it is about determining whether or not ESP really exists and if so, whether or not promising ESP subjects can be taught to fully control their latent abilities. It is not about “deliberate creation of multiple personality in children”, nor is there an “explicitly stated plan” nor even a subtly hinted at plan, to create multiple personality in children anywhere in that document. The word “children” only appears once in the entire proposal document – in a list of source groups from which data will be drawn, with regard to group experimentation intended to establish whether or not test scores of individuals can be predicted using psychological or physiological scales.
Furthermore, as documented by the chart of funding applicant “status” provided by Ross in the appendixes, the persons who developed this proposal and presumably carried out experiments related to it were unwitting recipients of CIA funding for this study. 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 or any “manchurian candidate” production programs the CIA might have been planning or running.
Part Two – Hypnosis, dissociative states, identities versus personalities – coming soon!
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.