A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on January 2nd, 2015, 8:05 pm

I think that some people looking into this research may consider "abuse" to be considered a kind of hoax on some level, because the tendency of researchers is to re-question what has happened in our public dialogue. "Abuse" in particular has had more than its fair share of attention in the Nutwork's omnimedia. They use language to isolate particular cases of abuse and embarrass politicians that they wish to threaten and target, but isn't abuse far more rampant than the media lets on? Doesn't their overhanging threat of moralizing shame upon the apparent celebrities and heroes seem as though it is an empty threat or that the definition of "abuse" is being reduced to specific cases of high-profile responsibility rather than the basic expectation of a decent human being?

I would argue against the belief that abuse is a hoax in favor of something close to a "universal truth" of the concept of abuse. I believe abuse is rampant, it is an interwoven part of American and Anglo culture (and other cultures, I am sure, but not being as close to other cultures I can only speak from my personal experiences and personal navigations through the subtlest social networks of "White" culture) and I am prepared to say it does not belong in the culture but is the result of a kind of cultural trauma from living as multiple, re-displaced nations.

I watched a video by Red Pill Revolution describing Sandy Hook actors and child actors with alarmist language. I believe it raises some legitimate concerns, even though it could also be a reach considering the typical behavior of some parents. I do feel the child was not comfortable but one could extrapolate all sorts of reasons for this. I personally feel it may be connected to the Psychological Operation act, but it doesn't really matter because it brings up a much larger subject that applies to these military drills involving the crass exploitation of children.

There may be some simple aggressive psychology happening in the actors who volunteer or are coerced into these pseudo-social programs. I wondered how it could happen that someone would sway, punish and reward a child in such a way as to get them accustomed to sexual advances and sexual rewards for the purpose of manipulating them. I believe it is basic psychology that a child might be rewarded with love and attention, and punished with warnings and other punishments. But the adult extremes of these credits and demerits are typically praise, fame, money, sex, wanted drugs on the "reward" spectrum and threats, violence, rape, torture, forced drugs on the "punishment" spectrum. A healthy adult hopefully does not encounter an inordinate amount of manipulation using these things. However the extreme agents of these military drills may be forced to.

To control a child in these Psychological Operations, it occurs to me that the adult cajoler probably has the mentality of an abused person, despite any intellectual reflection on it. They may have placed a high value on these largely "adult" spectrums due to their own abusers (or feelings resulting from abuse, regardless of whether they would categorize it as such) and tried to figure out a way of initiating the child into this same dark position — either because they are forced to or because they are now easily manipulated due to their weakened state of will power because they are an abused adult. Perhaps they even do their best to focus on their rewards (money, sexual play, protection within the pyramid, etc.) and they may not believe life has any more balanced state of being to offer them.

A typical child does not have as much interest in money or in fame. That leaves drugs and childish things like toys and candy (also a drug, in a sense). What about the question of sex? A normal child also does not have much interest in sex (if any, depending on the child) and definitely does not understand its adult nature because their bodies are largely not ready for it. However a child absorbs information; many stories (if not all stories, no matter how violent or intense) are meant for children in order to give them lessons about life. An abused adult who wants to initiate the child into a manipulatable behavior cycle can abuse a child's openness to story telling by incorporating sexual elements to the story that breaks down a child's natural resistance to such.

This may be why Disney incorporates many sexually explicit themes in the background rather than overtly. By placing them in the background, they are relegated to secrets and codes and enigmas instead of subjects of discussion that their guardians can safely discuss with them. Disney becomes the "secret parent" who doesn't have the emotional connection and protectiveness of the child's true parents. The "abusive uncle" archetype, sadly realized via broadcasts.

The adult will try to convince the child that concepts beyond them need not accompany their sexual advances, that the sexual advances — even if they hurt, shame, confuse or insult the child — are inherently good. This may not be a very convincing argument for children truly in tune with their needs (and children are most of the time being necessarily "selfish" or self-caring on some level) but before the child can protest, the child can be reprimanded with the negative spectrum. Reward. Punishment. Repeat.

I think this cycle is more "rapid" in psychotic behaviors. The reward and punishment cycle is advanced in frequency, in abusive relationships, and perhaps there is even a constant drive to cling to the "reward" to avoid thinking of all the abuse they have received and dished. A kind of willful ignorance in cases where they are in control of their actions. I think the cycle is less rapid and may even take a long period of time to consider for less psychotic behaviors. For more empathic behaviors, the person responding resists and finds time to consider and prioritize the reward and the punishment. This may also explain why mobsters are known to put time pressure on a decision to decide on an offer one can't refuse. It isn't just the content of the offer, it is literally the frequency of the offer; it is an attempt at an accelerated abuse culture.

Threats, violence, promises of power, psychological reminders that the abused child is made more powerful or special because they have been initiated to the cycle of abuse. The delusion of the adult abuser is that the negative child spectrum does not need to be as violent as the adult spectrum. They will not confess their abusive behavior is a result of their own abuse, whenever it occurred, or that they are getting out their aggressive feelings on a helpless child. They must convince themselves that the child secretly desires to become abused on the terms of the abuser, before the child can even understand it, perhaps so that they are given tools of manipulating others; but if not, the abuser can excuse it as "win" or "reward" they have earned themselves by navigating within the reward-punishment spectrum. In short, the child is either an intern and an agent of perpetuation of abuse culture, or else it is a victim of the abuse culture, or some combination until it reaches adulthood and chooses (if possible) to escape it. Either way, depending on the type of abuser (see below in five categories) the abuser may see it as justified.

The belief that a child actually needs these things in order to navigate the world seems to be related to our military powers. The sense seems to be that a child's inherent protection must be overridden not with warnings but with demonstrations. This could explain the blatant petting of the child's breasts in the Sandy Hook video, and the creeping hand near the throat of the child as the adult abuser (posing as the witness father) threatens the punishment. It is on the edge of what constitutes child-friendly or overly adult reward-punishment spectra. Whether it constitutes child abuse or illegal child abuse or neither is for lawyers, parents, psychologists and others to figure out. My point is that some of the "parenting" being acted on "live TV" may be called into question as signs, acknowledgment, symptoms or endorsements of the culture of abuse. The cycle that certainly exists in the adult realm of the actors in these Psychological Operations.

I propose five or so categories of culture for those running these PsyOps, which also implies people who are a cross between two or more of these categories. This is also a functional list of people in our society, because clearly the PsyOps are a cultural phenomenon rather than an abstracted removable force from our social contracts. I do not include non-human beings like animals in this analysis because it complicates the categories but you can easily imagine where pets (wildlife, animal husbandry, etc.) fit into all of this:

5. It is my speculation that the child victims of this system could disappear within it surrounded by supposedly loving guardians who are actually psychopathic and who lack parental love for their own children. This is the culture of true psychos. They are a small percentage, probably under 10% of the general population but concentrated much higher in our "ponerological" system. Possibly, the place where "successful" psychos reside is in the military and intelligencia system.

4. Those who would unhappily let their kid die within this system might be on the edge of psychopathy, who might otherwise protect their children if they could be free of the abuse culture. These are the "learned psychopaths" who do more to survive than they do to save their children.

3. There is also, most likely, a large population of actors within the military drill culture who actually love their children with parental love — some who abuse them and some who do not — and this is a difficult concept for readers who are non-abusive parents because it means they both love their children but also feel okay with incest. This is probably the last category where incestual abuse is present.

2. There are those who are in the second tier category, or what we may consider "normal" and are not unlike most people who have both abusive and caring inclinations, who would abuse or harm those outside their family, but not their own — especially to defend their family from threats, or — sometimes — even insults if the psychosis factor is high enough. These people may find comfort in the money rewards of the perps and "disappear" to a protected area, get plastic surgery or do any other number of weird and extreme things that demonstrate their behavior and their beliefs. They will lie for a paycheck, quite righteously comforting themselves that they do not belong to the third, fourth or fifth tiers composed of largely psychopathic people. They may even be in denial that they belong to this tier. They do not wish to believe they are defending any of those types of people. But on some level, they don't care. Out of sight, out of mind.

1. Then, and this is the smallest category by far, there are the incorruptible. They are people of all walks of life, of all opinions, disjointed, scattered and frequently loners of one kind or another. They refuse to harm others on their terms of what constitutes harm; they reflect often on what harm actually means and how it can be avoided in the violent world we find ourselves in. They will practice some measure of self-defense and defense of their friends and family and some measure of selflessness. These people may have friends and family within the second tier category, or even the more extreme categories, and yet they find those friends/family avoiding this first tier out of fear, respect and knowledge that they are more easily bribed; in the category of abusers, the incorruptible can be some of the most vicious enablers because they are opinion leaders that order communities around them based on their spiritual or world views. If some of us researchers are lucky enough to be considered incorruptibles (and I think amongst us there may be a higher percentage than the average population) we must be careful not to become aligned with the morals of the abusers or their enablers, wherever it is possible to avoid doing so.

I think some perps from the other tiers (definitely not all) pose as incorruptibles, and in so doing hope to gain the respect and/or self-respect they envy and hate. Perhaps even some measure of self-disgust drives them, which would feed into their abusive attitude toward themselves and others.

We may complain about how our system works (or does not work) because of these categories of people. And we may lament our inability to change it. However, I think it is good of us to accept it and to even find a way of reconciling their existence on this planet (call it forgiveness, love, patience or just acceptance if you will). And by doing so, we might come to see the signs of the abuse, understand why it exists (it's a part of human nature) and perhaps design a better system that does not so easily encourage it. We might not be able to help those who are truly passionately compassionless, but we might be able to create a system which prevents the most sensible first tier people from being so ostracized, second and third tier people from being victimized by the fourth and fifth cultures of abuse and one another, and the most extreme psychos from maintaining technological superiority over others. But how?

This seems to me to be the newly realized mission of our generation and our age, thanks to a growing awareness of psychopathy and what it does to cultures and governments. We should develop respect of people. Let us not get sucked into the idea of the "glory of history" or movements even as we respect those things; let us instead focus on the here, now, the lands we were born on or find ourselves at home in. Let us orient ourselves from a point of health for where we are and who we are and what surrounds us. The idea of marching to "progress" or some "promised land" has gotten us confused about who all is here in our crowd of some 8 billion people, and how they are situated. Perhaps we have lost track of our needs now for an abstracted "greater good" that we are prepared to sacrifice the best about "now" toward, regardless of the damage it does to us now and in the future. Realizing how the abuse culture enables and informs the PsyOps may give us valuable insight into ways of turning this machine around, perhaps even shutting it down, in favor of a world without the most damaged people among us leading the show.

I need to stop copy-editing this piece, so I will just leave it there for now. Responses? Thoughts?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby fbenario on January 3rd, 2015, 3:22 am

hoi.polloi wrote: If some of us researchers are lucky enough to be considered incorruptibles (and I think amongst us there may be a higher percentage than the average population) we must be careful not to become aligned with the morals of the abusers or their enablers, wherever it is possible to avoid doing so.

Keeping the Golden Rule in mind in all interactions is the best prophylactic I know to avoid mistreating or manipulating others.

Excellent article. You make a lot of very good points.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on January 3rd, 2015, 7:27 am

Thanks for the reminder, fbenario. It truly is a great one.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby lux on January 4th, 2015, 12:17 am

A fine and well thought out essay, hoi. Thanks for posting it.

A thought of mine on the subject of abuse as it applies in this context is: “abuse is the excuse.”

What I mean by that is that my perception of these folks (I believe I've come into contact with some of them in my life) is that they see themselves as superior to the rest of the population and it is the abuse which they have endured that makes them so. This also “justifies” the actions of the abusers because they perceive themselves as doing good -- forging a superior being through abuse. A sort of trial by fire or something along those lines.

It's an inverse or mockery of the traditional idea of treating one's children with love and respect so that they will do the same. And, it's also completely psychotic of course.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on January 4th, 2015, 3:56 pm

That makes sense. Abuse is used to justify itself in some way, and the way you describe makes sense. Has a kind of fascist ring to it, as well, which would somewhat implicate aspects of the State government.

I am not sure I totally believe the rumors online about celebrity CNN pseudo-journalist Larry King being a top man in a child abuse network, or this story about a Larry King of Franklin Credit Union in Nebraska involving the FBI, but if anyone finds those stories and gives them a look through, I'd be interested to hear if anyone finds them as frighteningly plausible as I did. One narrative can be found under the search "Franklin Cover-up".

I had to take frequent breaks while reading it. It was heavy muckraking. Felt like dragging for bodies, hysteria of the alleged victims included.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on January 4th, 2015, 5:59 pm

I'll say this much about the "Franklin Cover-up", as well, which Wickedpedophilia refers to as merely the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" rather than the far more fucked up allegations involved. The allegations are not just child prostitution, but murder, torture and truly awful things that — even if proven untrue — are incentive enough to warrant investigation into propaganda and its capabilities at covering up the truth.

A Wikipedia entry this short, dealing with such intense crimes, reads like a disingenuous cover-up in itself. This is the entry on the subject, in its entirety. Note how it seems to criminalize linking child abuse with the Bush Administration, despite a well-known culture of prostitution, rape, murder and child abuse within high profile political circles.

The Franklin child prostitution ring allegations took place between 1988 and 1991 and involved an alleged child sex ring serving prominent citizens of the Nebraska Republican Party, as well as high-level U.S. politicians.[1] The allegations also claimed that the alleged sex ring was led by, "a cult of devil worshipers involved in the mutilation, sacrifice and cannibalism of numerous children."[1] The allegations centered on the actions of Lawrence E. King Jr., who ran the now defunct Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (FCFCU) in Omaha, Nebraska.[2]

The Nebraska State Foster Care Review Board submitted the results of a two-year investigation into the alleged physical and sexual abuse of foster children to the Executive Board of the Nebraska Legislature, who were investigating reports of child sexual abuse linked to the credit union. Authorities launched a probe, interviewing a number of claimed abuse victims who said that children in foster care were flown to the U.S. East Coast and were abused at "bad parties."[3] After investigation, a grand jury in Douglas County (of which Omaha, Nebraska is the largest city and county seat) determined the abuse allegations were baseless, describing them as a "carefully crafted hoax" and indicted two of the accusers on perjury charges.[4] The grand jury also suggested that the abuse stories originated from a vindictive employee terminated by Boys Town, the famed refuge for troubled youths.[4] Later, a federal grand jury concluded that the abuse allegations were unfounded and indicted 21-year-old Alisha Owen, an alleged victim, on eight counts of perjury. The same grand jury also indicted multiple officers of the credit union, including King, for crimes related to the embezzlement of funds from the credit union.[4][5] Alisha Owen served 4-1/2 years in prison.[6]

Historian Philip Jenkins explored how hot topics such as the Franklin allegations, whether or not they are worthy of attention or credible on their own merits, are seized by political opportunists for their own purposes. He also described how cases such as the Franklin allegations can acquire credibility, even if they lack any credibility inherently, when reported in various media in a credulous voice.[1] Numerous conspiracy theories evolved and persist, claiming that the alleged abuse was part of a widespread series of crimes including devil worship, cannibalism, drug trafficking, CIA arms dealing and links with the first Bush Administration.[1]

References

Jenkins, Philip (2004). Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale University Press. pp. 174–5. ISBN 978-0-300-10963-4.
Robbins, William (December 18, 1988). "A Lurid, Mysterious Scandal Begins Taking Shape in Omaha". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2013.
Robbins, William (December 25, 1988). "Nebraska Inquiry Is Given File on Sex Abuse of Foster Children". The New York Times. Retrieved May 18, 2012.
Robbins, Williams (July 29, 1990). "Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales". The New York Times. Retrieved May 13, 2011.
"Omaha Tales of Sexual Abuse Ruled False". The New York Times. Associated Press. September 27, 1990. Retrieved May 13, 2011.
USA Today. August 9, 1991. p. 6A. "Alisha Owen, convicted of lying to grand jury probing charges of sex and drug abuse in failure of Omaha credit union, was sentenced to 9 to 15 years in prison."


Yale press? Seriously, Yale? The home of the Skull and Bones society? That's your source? A single New York Times journalist. Associated press. These are the things that trace the alleged truth.

No sign of text from the huge compilation of investigation material into the matter done by John W. DeCamp. So DeCamp is an admitted aide to CIA director William Colby and it quickly becomes a messy business? Oh, Wickedpeddler, the lengths you will go to avoid accidentally recording untruths written by intelligence operatives ... if only such a policy could be as dismissive of hoaxes like 9/11. There wouldn't be a need for Wikipedia pages on the vicsims, just as there is no Wikipedia page for Lawrence "Larry" King.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby lux on January 6th, 2015, 2:45 am

I haven't studied the Franklin story so can't comment on it but I do tend to believe the pedo stories in general that involve these characters -- politicians, banksters, etc. It just seems to fit the profile. I mean these guys have to be seriously demented and perverse to do the things they do. It also makes sense as a perfect way of controlling them from above via blackmail, etc so extreme perversions would seem to be a likely job qualification for positions of authority.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on January 6th, 2015, 7:30 pm

lux wrote:I haven't studied the Franklin story so can't comment on it but I do tend to believe the pedo stories in general that involve these characters -- politicians, banksters, etc. It just seems to fit the profile. I mean these guys have to be seriously demented and perverse to do the things they do. It also makes sense as a perfect way of controlling them from above via blackmail, etc so extreme perversions would seem to be a likely job qualification for positions of authority.


In some ways, I think you're right. I vacillate between two nagging ideas in my mind about the perps: they either seriously enjoy being "demented" because they execrate and resent life as much as the stories of torture, murder and death imply or they are just normal people who like to promote this perception because it's repulsive or otherwise useful to keeping them in power.

I think the latter possibility actually increases the likelihood of the first, due to the extremely nihilistic attitude of the rich and bored. Again, I think this is all just describing the most disgusting aspects of human nature itself. It's just that some people, like you or me, would never do these things even if we were caught up in some culture of it. That would be the end of our membership to such a tribe. We'd leave the tribe in disgust and try to take our favorite people with us when we go. Other people, however, seem to find it aligns with their purpose in life: to be an absolutely despicable monster that represents the monstrous aspects of the human race.

In the end, I am scared to admit that you and Simon are probably right about them: they are simply the most repulsive souls walking around in human skin and attire. And they take pride in it. What does that mean for us? I guess we just have to learn to deal with the fact that psychopaths exist, and our most productive activity to that end is warning our loved ones about it, not to mention discovering and exposing who amongst our friends and family may resemble either end of the spectrum. A very uncomfortable business, but one which I think can be done in polite ways. Like reminding people you suspect of being psychos that they are not permitted to bring their behavior into your circles.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby Apache on November 10th, 2015, 8:38 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:In the end, I am scared to admit that you and Simon are probably right about them: they are simply the most repulsive souls walking around in human skin and attire. And they take pride in it. What does that mean for us? I guess we just have to learn to deal with the fact that psychopaths exist, and our most productive activity to that end is warning our loved ones about it, not to mention discovering and exposing who amongst our friends and family may resemble either end of the spectrum. A very uncomfortable business, but one which I think can be done in polite ways. Like reminding people you suspect of being psychos that they are not permitted to bring their behavior into your circles.


I think it's also useful to question the "cycle of abuse" theory that was spread and promoted by the group that is being discussed in the "Hiding in Plain Sight" thread, most especially by Alice Miller (who didn't believe in the theory herself).

I've known both malignant narcissists and psychopaths who weren't abused by their parents and who were violent either physically, psychologically, or both, contrary to the "cycle of abuse" theory. They were, in fact, spoiled and privileged people who felt they had a right to abuse others. Contrary to that I've met many people who were abused and who did not, and would not, go onto abuse others, no matter how awful it was.

hoi.poloi wrote:that the abused child is made more powerful or special because they have been initiated to the cycle of abuse


When a child, who has not been abused, believes they are powerful and special anyway and then goes on to be an abusive parent, or an abusive "perp" in society, doesn't it discredit the "cycle of abuse" theory?

Have you contemplated that some children are psychopathic and that narcissism begins in childhood, slides into malignant narcissism during a later phase and then usually into full blown psychopathy in later life and some children involved in psyops might be quite happy to participate?

hoi.poloi wrote:the mentality of an abused person


I think you need to make clear that the non-abusive abused person isn't included in what you say. Your phrase implies that all abused people have a "mentality" and that it is a negative and destructive one. There are thousands of people who have been abused, who don't abuse others, and who actively avoid it. I am wondering why an abused person's non-abusive mentality and behaviour is different from those who do go on to abuse others?

I'm also confused as to how incorruptible people can become a "vicious enabler" of abuse? Incorruptible is an absolute. It means they can't be corrupted and your point doesn't make sense to me.

hoi.poloi wrote:They will not confess their abusive behavior is a result of their own abuse


Isn't it possible that an abusive person will not confess their abusive behaviour as being the result of their own abuse, because there wasn't any? They lie through their teeth you know.

hoi.poloi wrote:Perhaps even some measure of self-disgust drives them, which would feed into their abusive attitude toward themselves and others.


I note your "perhaps". Are there any true signs of self-disgust towards themselves? Do you see abusers cutting themselves, having an eating disorder, or attempting suicide? Don't psychopaths love themselves totally? The disgust the non-abusive abused feel about allowing themselves to be manipulated is turned inwards. They will also feel an acute lack of self worth. I've not met a psychopath yet who didn't have an inflated sense of their own self worth. Psychopaths are not conflicted and neither are a lot of abusers. They have no problem with what they do, until they are caught and punished. Then the distraction tactics come thick and fast and one of those tactics is "I was abused".

If, as you state, abuse is a part of human nature how then do we explain an abusers' inhumanity? Isn't it their inhumanity, and lack of conscience and remorse, that marks them as a predator and not as a part of the human race, where mutuality, co-operation and non-parasitism is the norm, not the exception? I can see that psychopaths and abusers would like us to think otherwise and that's why we are bombarded with "humanity is sh*t" messages and that abusers go on to abuse others (via a "cycle of abuse") despite evidence to the contrary. I see an enormous amount of compassion and empathy inside the vast majority of the human race; a race that, in the main, doesn't want war or violence or a Police State and who would simply like to be left alone to enjoy their lives, yet individually and collectively are blamed for the actions that elite psychopaths have taken without their consent.

I hope I am giving a measured response here and that I am not being confrontational, but how about re-thinking all the old psychological paradigms, and especially looking at where they have come from? We should ask victims of psychopathy or abuse what the signs are, instead of turning to a theory (the cycle of abuse) that wasn't written by someone who lived up close and personal with a psychopath and who, in the end, was a total hypocrite.

Respectfully, are you willing to reconsider the "cycle of abuse" theory and possibly accept that you might have allowed it to take root in your mind without questioning where that idea came from and why? What might the theory have ultimately been justifying? Thanks in advance. :D
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby Painterman on November 11th, 2015, 12:40 pm

There is a psychological incompatibility between the existing dichotomy

abuser vs. abused (interaction of abuse)

and the newly introduced equality

abuser = abused (cycle of abuse).

This incompatibility causes cognitive dissonance, which results in an attitude of ambivalence replacing the previous conviction that abuse is a crime.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on November 12th, 2015, 8:38 am

First of all, I thank you all for the earnest critique. I would encourage people to actually read what I wrote and especially note the "category 5" that I made mention of. It would help for those that missed the point that abusers can be total psychos without any immediately apparent source (though, often times, let's be honest — it can be parents).

Apache wrote:I think it's also useful to question the "cycle of abuse" theory that was spread and promoted by the group that is being discussed in the "Hiding in Plain Sight" thread, most especially by Alice Miller (who didn't believe in the theory herself).


What was her theory? Is it different from the one I posted?

I've known both malignant narcissists and psychopaths who weren't abused by their parents and who were violent either physically, psychologically, or both, contrary to the "cycle of abuse" theory. They were, in fact, spoiled and privileged people who felt they had a right to abuse others. Contrary to that I've met many people who were abused and who did not, and would not, go onto abuse others, no matter how awful it was.


Yes, I think we need to be aware that some malignant narcissists and violent psychopaths simply exist because they were born that way. This is an extremely important point to bear in mind. Thank you for making it more plain than my essay may have.


When a child, who has not been abused, believes they are powerful and special anyway and then goes on to be an abusive parent, or an abusive "perp" in society, doesn't it discredit the "cycle of abuse" theory?


Only if you wish to take the "cycle of abuse" idea as a dogmatic point. Since we don't yet, I think your point adds excellent meaning to the possibilities mentioned; some kids have a chip on their shoulder from the start. Others are taught that they do. The question of "nature versus nurture" has seen some amazing science articles in recent years; it appears that many things are more nature than nurture; that is, some are simply born more prone to psychopathic behavior.


Have you contemplated that some children are psychopathic and that narcissism begins in childhood, slides into malignant narcissism during a later phase and then usually into full blown psychopathy in later life and some children involved in psyops might be quite happy to participate?


Absolutely. It's a great possibility — I would even say very high probability.

I think you need to make clear that the non-abusive abused person isn't included in what you say. Your phrase implies that all abused people have a "mentality" and that it is a negative and destructive one. There are thousands of people who have been abused, who don't abuse others, and who actively avoid it. I am wondering why an abused person's non-abusive mentality and behaviour is different from those who do go on to abuse others?


Yes, that is true. However, you have made an excellent distinction.

I'm also confused as to how incorruptible people can become a "vicious enabler" of abuse? Incorruptible is an absolute. It means they can't be corrupted and your point doesn't make sense to me.


I guess my terms aren't right and maybe you could help me figure out better terms. I wanted to distinguish from those who cannot themselves be tempted to do evil a special group of enablers who unwittingly cause it.

Isn't it possible that an abusive person will not confess their abusive behaviour as being the result of their own abuse, because there wasn't any? They lie through their teeth you know.


Yes, I agree whole-heartedly.

hoi.poloi wrote:Perhaps even some measure of self-disgust drives them, which would feed into their abusive attitude toward themselves and others.


I note your "perhaps". Are there any true signs of self-disgust towards themselves?


Yes, indeed. In some cases, I would say that people show themselves to be firmly on the psychopathic gray area of the psychopathy-empathy scale. In that case, they have to do something with either feeling in themselves. In cases of teary eyed confessions where the regret and self-disgust is plain, however, there could be a whole other debate about what that regret really is. Do they simply regret being caught, or is it a bit of despair that they have a body whose signals and hormones and innate behaviors cause them to be antisocial to an extreme? However, the question you asked remains in a rather haunting way: what is a true feeling that we can confirm another person has? I would say, by my judgement, I have seen true regret flicker on the faces of criminals.

Do you see abusers cutting themselves, having an eating disorder, or attempting suicide?


Maybe not the former that I know of, but the latter? Yes. Sometimes successfully.

Don't psychopaths love themselves totally?


I am not so sure about that.

The disgust the non-abusive abused feel about allowing themselves to be manipulated is turned inwards. They will also feel an acute lack of self worth. I've not met a psychopath yet who didn't have an inflated sense of their own self worth.


That's interesting. I wonder if we aren't conflating "ego" with "inflated self worth". After all, the value you place on a psychopath is undoubtedly much lower than the value they place on themselves. So "inflated" here is a term we have the privilege to say from our perspective looking at the monster from the outside.

Psychopaths are not conflicted and neither are a lot of abusers.


I think you are right about some kind of person. We should develop better terminology to distinguish. This essay was my attempt to draw a "range". And I see it definitely needs improvement based on your experiences alone.

They have no problem with what they do, until they are caught and punished. Then the distraction tactics come thick and fast and one of those tactics is "I was abused".


I have no doubt that is the tactic of a kind of pure psychopath. Yes. Perhaps "psychopath" should be reserved for this kind of person alone, but that slightly robs us of the ability to say everyone is born somewhere on that scale from psycho to empathic. I am fine with that as long as we can come up with replacement terms. I highly prize our creative ability as researchers to come up with useful theories and terminology together.

If, as you state, abuse is a part of human nature how then do we explain an abusers' inhumanity? Isn't it their inhumanity, and lack of conscience and remorse, that marks them as a predator and not as a part of the human race, where mutuality, co-operation and non-parasitism is the norm, not the exception?


Wow. That is a huge question. Shakespearian, really. In my opinion, I would sadly say, "No." Psychopaths are a form of humanity. We cannot extricate ourselves from the situation by executing or punishing psychopaths, even though that seems like the logical thing to do. Many wars are the result of psychopathic propaganda misleading us on how to get rid of the psychopaths. I don't know if we have a way to do that. I am not sure it's even possible. Maybe the solution is in the near future, though.

I can see that psychopaths and abusers would like us to think otherwise and that's why we are bombarded with "humanity is sh*t" messages and that abusers go on to abuse others (via a "cycle of abuse") despite evidence to the contrary. I see an enormous amount of compassion and empathy inside the vast majority of the human race; a race that, in the main, doesn't want war or violence or a Police State and who would simply like to be left alone to enjoy their lives, yet individually and collectively are blamed for the actions that elite psychopaths have taken without their consent.


I see that.

I hope I am giving a measured response here and that I am not being confrontational, but how about re-thinking all the old psychological paradigms, and especially looking at where they have come from? We should ask victims of psychopathy or abuse what the signs are, instead of turning to a theory (the cycle of abuse) that wasn't written by someone who lived up close and personal with a psychopath and who, in the end, was a total hypocrite.


Excuse me, but I came up with the thing I wrote and I take responsibility for it. If I accidentally copied a pre-existing theory then I am sorry for the confusion.

Respectfully, are you willing to reconsider the "cycle of abuse" theory and possibly accept that you might have allowed it to take root in your mind without questioning where that idea came from and why? What might the theory have ultimately been justifying? Thanks in advance. :D


Yes, definitely. In fact, I have a suspicion that we often don't understand where our own ideas come from and that is something psychopaths or even just hypnotists take advantage of. However, allow me to discount it slightly, because I am drawing this idea from a lot of conversations with others about this kind of thing. Many of them, I am sure, have no idea about the woman you are talking about (I never heard of her, as far as I remember) and so I don't think setting up her text in place of mine is a fair way to read what I wrote.

It's unfortunate that a pre-existing text will color how people read mine, and in that case, it's a failure of creativity on my part. But so far I only see a few modifications needed, which you pointed out. And thank you for that.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on November 12th, 2015, 8:48 am

Painterman wrote:There is a psychological incompatibility between the existing dichotomy

abuser vs. abused (interaction of abuse)

and the newly introduced equality

abuser = abused (cycle of abuse).


I agree. But unfortunately, the psychological incompatibility would occur in such cases.

The idea that an abuser is equal to the abused is not a fair idea, is it? If it was read as the predominant model, then I failed to explain the "chicken and egg" scenario I believe we are facing. With those for which abuse becomes a motivation (physical, physiological, emotional or otherwise) to abuse others (even if on a "lesser" level — and this whole simplistic way of talking about it is still very difficult) there is still the problem of the initial abuser, who may well be a totally remorseless narcissistic cold-blooded evildoer. However, I absolutely did not intend to relegate the mystery of such an entity to a remote and unimportant past. On the contrary, I presume we are (unfortunately) dealing with a great number of people who might be like that, and they make up a kind of culture of batty psycho folks and/or those who allow that aspect of them great reign over their life on Earth — which is a nasty problem for everyone else.

Yet, life is not fair either. People change over time. Children grow up. Adults get old. Sorry to put it so obviously, since I know you are aware of these things, but it is my attempt at literary reminders: please do not think in terms of purely one "abuser" or one "abused" without also recognizing the full spectrum of someone's life that surrounds the events of abuse. The math formulas you posted are antithema to the important possible subtleties I mean to point out about how and why people behave the way they do.


This incompatibility causes cognitive dissonance


In whom? Yourself?

which results in an attitude of ambivalence replacing the previous conviction that abuse is a crime.


Well, by what standards is abuse a crime? Which set of law books and/or cultural laws? Sorry, but these rhetorical questions are meant to open up the discussion to the complexities of the problem. I don't know if we really need to see what constitutes "child abuse" in various cultures around the world, where hitting/yelling/spanking/various forms of psychological manipulation or a kind of sexual slavery may be norms. But to be aware of that fact while considering how various cultures encourage/discourage/nurture/handle/exile/execute their psychopaths, seems pretty important to me.

That is why, in my discussions about this, I try to identify a range from "totally psycho every waking moment" to "totally empathic every waking moment" even if I suspect pure versions are extreme rarities if they exist at all. It is an eerie rainbow, but it's all people being people. If my essay failed to explain that better, I am sorry. As far as why people are the initial data set we can draw from to try to understand what's going on, I can't pretend to know. [Insert favorite deity/explanation here].
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby Seneca on November 12th, 2015, 8:59 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
which results in an attitude of ambivalence replacing the previous conviction that abuse is a crime.


Well, by what standards is abuse a crime? Which set of law books and/or cultural laws? Sorry, but these rhetorical questions are meant to open up the discussion to the complexities of the problem. That is why I try to identify a range from "totally psycho every waking moment" to "totally empathic every waking moment" even if I suspect pure versions are extreme rarities if they exist at all.


For me the standard is very simple: "Do no harm". I find that it works very well.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby hoi.polloi on November 12th, 2015, 9:04 am

Seneca, that's a good one. I have also heard the Golden Rule with a bit of a modification: Do unto others as you believe they would have you do unto them, if it doesn't conflict with your principles, and if you can't figure out what they want, leave them alone! :lol:

For some occult people, however (Masons and other creeps who don't boast of their abusive behavior in texts but actively hide it) the idea "Do as thou wilt" is more prevalent.

I wonder if that principle is more psychopathic or empathic, depending on who adopts it.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps

Postby Painterman on November 12th, 2015, 10:56 am

hoi.polloi wrote:The idea that an abuser is equal to the abused is not a fair idea, is it?

More than fair, it follows from basic logic, given the theory that someone is an abuser due to their status of being abused.

1. The victim is the abused, according to the law, which calculates criminal liability accordingly.

2. The abuser is the abused, according to the "cycle of abuse" telling of the story from the monster's point of view.

3. #1 and #2 are cognitively dissonant.

In whom? Yourself?

They are cognitively dissonant in anyone who can't hold two emotionally charged and mutually incompatible beliefs at the same time, e.g. "abuser vs. abused" and "abuser = abused". That is, virtually everyone.

Resolution of this (distressing) incompatibility entails abandoning moral and legal condemnation of the abuser when adopting an ambivalent attitude in the matter. This could be the motive behind the popularization of this theory, as part of a general push to criminalize society.

Well, by what standards is abuse a crime? Which set of law books and/or cultural laws?

Every standard of jurisprudence in the world (that I'm aware of) - which is what determines what a "crime" (legal term) is - considers abuse a crime.

There's a push to weaken the social conscience regarding many forms of abuse. This is probably where the "abuser = abused" equation originated.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Next

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests