Recovery Chapter: a chapter of my own comprehension of my own psychological recovery, and also for many other Aborigines, told in a way that non-Aboriginal oriented people will be able to acknowledge.
These words began as a draft “Paper On the Reality of Ritualised Sexual Abuse From the Perspective of a Non-professional Survivor”. There is a part of my story that is being covered up, but it will show in this chapter, because this chapter is how I wrote words for white people in mainstream culture to understand about why real Kinship is normal, and the best way of protecting children. I wrote this also because I have met too many Aborigines who were hurt by being in gaol, and I know that the pattern we are being hurt through, has a recovery pattern.
While I was writing this at first, I had a friend in mind, who has helped me to be certain about the patterns in which men are being abused. So this needs to say thankyou to the men who have been able to tell me about what was done to them. Three men have proven to me this story, and they are all in the same dreaming, which is normally the right story to be a father to my story. I also had in mind, while writing this, any interested professionals whom have encountered victims of ritualised abuse seeking help, and specifically also the psychologists who are working with Aborigines, but who do not yet understand Aboriginal culture. I hope it will be able to give words to the psychology profession for describing this story of becoming mentally ill after being abused, and then recovering by belief in the right parts of each of the two cultures we inhabit.
I made this whole longer essay, into its own chapters, because that way it will be less difficult for mainstream Australians to find. Remember while reading it that the way I use English here is how I write for ordinary Australians with a university education. The chapters I wrote are:
· Introduction, including a statement about how this paper came to be, and what its purpose is.
· Chapter One, Kinship: The cultural basis of belief within which the author’s survival from ritualised abuse is being sustained, and which informs the rest of the social analysis in this paper.
· What exactly is ritual abuse: The range of social behaviours which come within the framework of analysis of ritualised abuse, including some analysis of the grey area in between child rapists coaching of children, and the more strongly ritualised coaching involved in conditioning adults into making themselves, and potentially also children, vulnerable.
· What is believed by the criminals whom conduct ritual abuse, ie why they do it from their point of view, and what is their perceived benefit, and therefore what is the disease belief.
· A Conclusion: all twenty five pages of it, with the results of a bit of research, undertaken almost by accident after writing the whole as it is in this draft, sort of tacked onto the end, because I have not yet had a chance to reconsolidate the framework of the original essay/thesis. (Even though I wrote it from very limited previous knowledge from within the academic discipline of psychology, and do not know all the jargons and dogmas, so far so good in respect of further information validating my analysis.)
I need also assert here, that for anybody who has not already been exposed to the inner psychology of the victims of ritualised abuse, there are parts of this whole, identified in the fourth dot point, but not entirely identified in the conclusion, except for by the use of parenthesis and italics, in which I expose portions of how the inner experience of being ritually abused is able to relate to the mainstream world’s ideas and ideals and normal thought processes, therefore making it safe to expose, in small part, the actual psychology of the victims. I will caution anybody who is vulnerable not to read all of this document, and not without a clear framework of safety in pre-existing belief.
Introduction, including a statement about how this paper came to be, and what its purpose is.
This paper is being written as part of an ongoing process by the author, to dispel myths about the nature of being sexually violated, and what makes anybody vulnerable to a sexual violation. It is also a social analysis of why such events still take place, why there is often ritual involved in such events, and how we can individually and socially protect ourselves and children from the forms of ritual in which abuse is enabled.
While this paper most often seems to be broadening the definition of ritualised abuse away from the descriptions we normally associate to as ritualised abuse, it is not the case that I am intending to minimise the experience of those whom have been abused within extremely overtly ritualised contexts. Their experience is normally all the more difficult to address because of a certain social stigma and shame around having engaged in what are manifestly essentially bizarre sets of social interactions. The key to the whole story is about how the extremes of ritualised abuse, are conditioned through very normal seeming social interactions, in which perpetrators specialise in seeking and entertaining those individuals whom are less adept than others at engaging within mainstream social contexts in patterns which are fully self guarded.
The author’s own experience is really only the tip of the iceberg of the full extent of perpetration of ritualised abuse within the Australian mainstream. In fact, if I had not immediately been able to detect that the behaviour around me, which I was being expected to engage with, was ritualised within a wrong interpretation of why ritual exists and what its social function is, I might not be living today to provide the lesson of experience so that others might not need to endure the experience.
What is obvious about my own story, is that I am well furnished with real information and positive experiences of all the various social contexts in which it was attempted to cause me to make myself vulnerable; and/but at the same time, I was not fully comfortable in my life in any of those normal social contexts, and that my discomfort was enabling of me to be able to detect discrepancies of belief in social context. What is insightful in the process of recovery, is that the very same discomfort which originally made me vulnerable, is what also has enabled recovery. I have worked from a base line belief, which might be related to in respect of varying ideas about the meaning of the word “Karma” which is commonly misinterpreted in mainstream Australia, from its sanscrit origin. The fundamental idea is that those of us whom have experienced being abused, have also experienced within that abuse, the seeds being sown of what will fuel our full recovery.
Yet I also favour the idea that we will not recover only by forwarding any guilt we might experience about our own behavioural regulation, on to whoever the perpetrators are, and might have been: the guilt needs to pass through its own transformation, often fraught with hardship. A set of emotional, social, and even in some instances, intellectual, hardships, in which we are able to accept that the value of our experience is within knowledge of a social need to accept fulfilling responsibility to ensure that no other person might succumb to the situations in which we were originally made vulnerable. If we only cease from blaming ourselves and each other as victims, by blaming the perpetrators without working to prevent their action, then we can by accident contribute to the furthering of the cycles in which such abuses occur. It is equally wrong to victimise a perpetrator, as it was for our own self to have been victimised, especially since many perpetrators already are caught up in patterns of mental disease of internal belief that they are being persecuted. And yet we, as a society, must face such individuals and place upon them every available social sanction which forbids that they could ever re-offend.
A significant part of the story of sexual abuse in ritualised settings, is that such forms of abuse are more likely to cause that the victim becomes a perpetrator. I learned that the hard way after discovering that most persons whom knew I had been ritually abused, assumed that I might thereafter not be able to prevent myself from committing the abuse which it had been “programmed” into my subconscious to commit.
What saved, and saves, me, is that I have a conscience. A social conscience, but also an individual conscience regulated by close bonds with my children, extended family, lovers, and all longer term acquaintances. Even when I could not have been conscious in my full mental capacity, of the consequences of what I became a party to only through witness at times, (not even witness of others being abused, but witness of the situation in which it was assumed that I might be in agreement with being raped only by my presence being sustained), I was conscious of what the difference is between a feeling about it being alright to bear witness, and not alright. That is, I trusted my own instinctual differentiation between right and wrong. I also have an intellectual differentiation capacity, between right and wrong. What is clearly distinctive about ritual abuse contexts, is that the intellectual reasoning capacity fails to regulate decision making in favour of basic human safety.
I will not be using this paper to divulge the details of what exactly was done against my own person, but I am in need of awarding the fact of my survival and recovery to the processes of Aboriginal cultural regulation. So in that, you might all realise that one of my abusers was an Aboriginal man, and that many of the abuse settings were conditioned within the rituals of Aboriginal culture, in an adjoining of Aboriginal culture with the means to access worth and money in mainstream culture. The fact of the matter is that there has been a false adjoinment of indigenous cultural beliefs and values, with the mainstream Euro-centric world view of white Australia. And adjoining of cultures in which neither need be adhered to. What conditioned me to be able to survive the process before I experienced it, was having experienced positive consequences from abiding within the cultural regulation patterns and sanctions of both cultures.
What I can categorically say is that the abuse patterns which become ritualised in any culture, are the same. I fully realised that when I began to experiment on myself with how various Religious practises and belief structures either could improve or worsen my psychology. Not long before Easter 2004, I was full immersion Baptised within a very Evangelical style Church, of the sort reputed to be potentially dangerous in respect of psychological conditioning. It was the Australian Revivalist Fellowship. I can categorically state that they are a Church whom are furnished with many true believers, and that they therefore can truly sustain the worth of Christian Fellowship, however, it need also be told that the pattern in which the take their membership through an induction into the fold of Christ, is regulated by the same exact patterning principals in which criminals engage in ritualised abuse for criminal purposes. This need not reflect at all badly upon the Church. Not upon the Revivalist Fellowship, the other Churches who use similar psychological conditioning patterns, or even the mainstream Australian Churches. Alongside attending the Revivalist Fellowship around Easter 2004 I was also attending the Brisbane Anglican Cathedral, and while they are not overt in using the same patterns of social conditioning, they are also within the group of organisations which could be defined as using the same method of patterned engagement of the human psychology. It is a method which has its origins with Kabbalah.
What was good about experiencing the Revivalist Fellowship was that they do not hide their use of those patterns, which enables the persons being subject to a new social conditioning, to be able to observe that process. That is also what happens within any context of use of the Indigenous Australian tradition. It is a cultural tradition in which criminality has no cover. That is, no cover beyond open and socially acceptable identification with animal stories. In fact the very most important and influential leaders whom are the best at working against crime, also tend to comply with a similar degree of animal identification as do the Aboriginal persons whom are criminals. (we ought not take our efforts against racism so far as to believe that traditional Aboriginal society did not have its own criminals: since that false belief in all Aborigines as the good guys, by the white educated mainstream, is what enables the Aboriginal criminals to abuse innocent Aboriginal persons) Every Aboriginal person sustains an animal identification, which does not indicate criminality in Aboriginal culture, as it does in almost every other. What it does indicate is a quantity and quality of acceptance of the psychology in which criminality can be prevented. The basic foundation belief is that criminal though patterns are manifestations of the natural non-human world in our mind, and that we need to cause that our mind associates all criminal mentality back into that natural world, as the flora, the fauna, and even the geology.
The whole social context from which this paper is being born can be regulated in it by the idea that a little knowledge is dangerous. But I will here condition the readers mind into questioning all the implications of that idea.
For example, to know only the little information that ritualised abuse engages in satanic belief, is dangerous, since you might not be aware than of your own degree of exposure to the lead in situations to ritual abuse. Yes, indeed there are instances of use of symbols like the pentangle and burning candles and calling upon Satan, surrounding a portion of the cases of ritualised abuse, and yes those cases really are happening; but they are only the really very obviously most abusive situations, in which the perpetrators are most readily able to define their own behaviour as abusive. Most perpetrators are ill aware of their behaviour, most can believe within themselves that it is wrong when they actually lay their hands on a child, but most are not fully conscious of the psychological patterns in which they are committing constant emotional and social and psychological abuse preliminary to engaging in acts of physical abuse, in which they are themselves conditioned to believe that the child, or adult, they abuse, was equitably guilty. They themselves are victims of having believed the perpetrator who blamed them as equitably guilty for the way in which they were abused themselves, most often as children. And yet this much knowledge on its own is also dangerous, since it can lead us into wanting to find the perpetrators easier to forgive than they really are.
What my own experience is of, is that a very little bit of knowledge about organised crime lead me into extraordinarily dangerous situations, from which the only route to safety is by engaging in acquiring more information. Unfortunately once caught in criminal situations most information is only acquirable by criminal means, which precludes many victims from acquiring the information which can enable some kind of recovery to occur. However, I have been able to sustain a fully non-criminal context for myself in my own home life, and in that have my family of origin to thank, despite their having abandoned me in assuming that I had already fallen into criminal practises myself. The danger that befell me from learning a little bit about organised crime, was not the danger of being tempted, but the danger of the social context of crime assuming that I would fall into being tempted.
I will put that in another way also. It did not happen that I became at risk because I, for example, heard about how to obtain cheaper higher quality drugs than are normally available, but because I heard about such things and decided to sustain my own personal integrity within law abiding behaviour and belief. I was not at risk because I was a drug user, but because I was assumed to be a drug user, and assumed to be a drug user who would not be able to resist temptation. In which, when I did not respond as was hoped, I was persecuted from within organised crime, and the patterns of persecution within criminal contexts, turn out to be the same patterns of behaviour within which favours are awarded.
What the outstanding weakness is of the criminals whom perpetrate ritual abuse, is that they do not believe in the scientific basis upon which the abuse is effective. They suppose that the abuse of the psychology requires that the victim believes what they want the victim to believe. As though anything could manifest as reality if only we might believe in it. That could not be further from the truth.
A truth in which the criminals are their own worst enemy, as every survivor of childhood abuse eventually realises. Their internal psychological imbalances, are in connection with a fear of death that is not being acknowledged, and in which they suppose to be enabled to escape from their own self and their previous behaviour. The criminal mind is expecting to be able to stop believing in a bad consequence to prevent that consequence from occurring, and so they imagine to get away with crime.
The fact that I can be sitting here writing this, is real concrete evidence that we exist within a framework of one set of basic facts as to what reality is, and that set of facts is not exchangeable, not negotiable, and still today enables that the innocent will not be able to be caused to believe in a criminal world as the real world. Yet we might sustain faith in criminality existing, if we are furnished with knowledge of a method to protect ourselves and our children, and to cause that criminal acts can be put a stop to. This idea is as fully real as to be the basis for every Religious creed and every effective culture.
Crime scares us when we notice its patterns manifesting in every culture, because we know that when a pattern exists in every culture, it has a shadow of reality, if not being itself a part of our agreed and acceptable world. Yet the basis of this paper, is an argument that criminality is only able to cross cultural boundaries because it has been leaning upon the patterns of real recovery of a healthy psychology as its means. For example, religious method. In which we are fortunate for the character of Satan whom identifies to us what is more likely to be a danger. So at its heart, this paper will address the issue of why crime continues to exist, and why there are ideas in every culture and religion about how to cause that criminal acts will cease. Perhaps I can even address the issue of social evidence of decreasing crime against children, and what enables that pattern.
Even though believing in something can not make it real, the way into a false belief, engages in a set of belief patterns, which enable also the way out. Why the work of traditional societies in curing mental health problems, and associated physical disease, was done by exorcists in conditions conducive to exaggerating the illness, is because the doctor needs to ascertain what the actual pattern of ill minded belief is, and the within that very same pattern, enter into negotiation with their patient, in which the doctor must be able to prove to the patient, within the unwell and illogical patterns of delusion, that the delusion is no more than a delusion, or false belief. In fact, it is that very same principal, in which those whom enact ritual abuse indulge their own fantasies. That is, they work with what their victims already believe, and attempt to disprove the basic premises of reality. Therefore, the strength of will of the patient, or victim, and also the strength of the set of cultural beliefs shared in good health, creates the psychologically and emotionally nurturing mental environment in which we are all able, to some degree, to resist false belief, and to recover from any incidence of. That psychological and emotional security is build in happy healthy safe and well loved childhood experience. Thus it is that we need to comprehend that most whom fall victim to ritualised abuse, were already, to some degree vulnerable by earlier abuses of their integrity.
Ritualised abuse is alike to any form of child abuse, in that the ritual creates an environment in which the victims are as fully disempowered as a child. It is the sort of abuse in which the crushing weight of the experience is that breach of interpersonal integrity of being certain about what shared reality exists between us.
I can not leave this introduction without adding a further comment about my own experiences of Aboriginal traditionally oriented culture. It is not the culture in which I was raised, but has been an integral shaping force in my life since 1988. I believe that if I had been ritually abused within the context of mainstream Australian culture, I would not have had the emotional and psychological integrity intact to fully recover. I also believe that it was because I was naive to the criminal participation in the Aboriginal mainstream, that I could have succumbed to the abuse in the first place, especially since I have always been adept at avoiding abuse within the mainstream. Yet had the situation been the other way around, and myself been familiar from early childhood with Aboriginal culture, and naive within the mainstream, the breach to my capacity to become adept at intercultural communication would not have been able to be sustained. Yet the very situation I was abused in originally, now over five years ago, is a situation of a misleading blend of these two cultures, which adheres to neither, yet shows all the signs of adhering to both; and it is a situation in which many many Aboriginal individuals have been abused in a way which actively prevents their psychological capacity to cope within any mainstream Australian setting. What I naively interpreted as some fact of a less familiar cultural pattern which I did not know well yet but trusted mistakenly, is far more readily able to be proven to me to have no place in Aboriginal culture, than it can be proven to the many young Aboriginal persons, whom have experienced the same phenomenon, and anticipated that it would prove to be enabling of access to the means of the mainstream of Australian society, as neither a real part of the mainstream.
Sadly because of the extent and depravity of abuses being committed against the Aboriginal population, many Aboriginal youth have been mistakenly lead to believe that every white mother is always failing her children, but is also covering up that failure by blaming Aboriginal mothers. That is at times, and in a minority of instances true. But we fail both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children alike, if we ever base decisions upon any racial discrimination based assessment, or cultural discrimination based assessment, rather than upon the individual merit of each case. A large part of what motivates me to be writing this, is within the fact that I became aware of white oriented, and racist, organised crime, conspiring to set up the indigenous population, to seem to have been whom was causing their own problems, by blaming whites. The method by which organised crime was effectively causing that mass delusion among Aboriginal drug taking youth, during the period from about 1967 to 2007, has been through ritual abuse. Therefore, the issue of ritual abuse takes on a formidable place in the prioritisation of enabling healing for stolen generations by a government apology. I hope that this paper will make a contribution to that process.
Chapter One, Kinship: The cultural basis of belief within which the author’s survival from ritualised abuse is being sustained, and which informs the rest of the social analysis in this paper.
Kinship is an anthropology concept, in which distinct patterns of familial and societal interpersonal relationships are regulated and maintained. In every society a form of Kinship exists. For example, in our own society, it is forbidden for first cousins to marry. In every society certain sexual relations are forbidden, such as any between adults and children not yet mature for and prepared for marriage. Also sexual relations within certain biologically defined relationships are permanently always forbidden. These functional and structural rules of society are so strongly manifest and upheld, that I do not here need to state that sexual relations between brothers and sisters or parents and children, or uncles and aunts and nieces and nephews, grandparents and grandchildren, are strictly always forbidden as equally as it is forbidden to marry your own first cousin.
However, in very many societies, Kinship is conceived to be a far broader, and also far more specific, definition of social relations and potential for having healthy happy social and familial bonds. Traditional Aboriginal Australia has one of the most outstandingly complex and well regulated sets of Kinship regulation patterns of every human society. Across the whole of Australia, in every tribe here, there were, and still are today, categorical Kinship systems in place. The anthropological descriptions of Kinship are very complex and confounded indeed. However if anybody is curious to read the anthropology, I can recommend an essay, and book chapters, by Meggit. Yet the experiential reality of Australian Kinship is deceptively simple. To comprehend the anthropology, you only need place your own self into the picture of being a person whom is identifiable within Kinship. For example, within the writing of Meggit, I am a nungarrayi, and that defines every Jangala as a potential husband whom I ought to relate to with that sort of humility, and every Djungjarrayi, is a brother, with whom there is no way for me to bear with his company if there is any sexual referencing, even circumstantially, present. And that pattern then extends with parents, and each sort of grand parent, uncle and aunty, etc, very clearly defined in respect of what sort of human relationships are able to be effective. A cousin who is my mother’s sister’s child, is defined as my sibling, but my father’s sister’s children, belong in a different category.
In fact, there is a set number of possible categories, although it does not always seem so since there is also a different subset of the total possible categories, which is possible in each locality depending upon what stories and songs belong to the land in that location. This is all usually described as though a form of superstitious belief, however, there are in fact the same set of possible categories present in mainstream European culture, and the white mainstream also sustains the knowledge, if not always believed in, of such things as ley lines upon which magic carpet travel can happen, and which are no more or less the same as a song line, and define in fact what sort of human characteristics and life stories are possible in any location. However the categories are best known to us in the form of their representation by the twelve apostles of Jesus. As a nungarrayi, but also since I am born in Armidale NSW, that apostle whom I best relate to is Saint John the Evangelist. The set of twelve is in fact a collapsed set of grouping those most similar of all possible stories together, and the full quantity of possibilities is exactly twenty six. That is information also available among anthropologists, and defined by Mircea Eliade, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Religion, as the “archetypes”. Basically there are twenty six possible story lines, known and taught in every culture, and every single existing story, can be stripped back to the bare bones of those twenty six.
That is, twenty six basic distinct patterns of human brain bio-chemistry, which are possible. Twenty six ley lines, aka songlines, and twenty six distinctly defined bone and cartilage structure patterns among all of humanity. A nurse once told me that she recognised the distinctions in patterns of the shape of the pinna of the ear.
The science which confirms Aboriginal Kinship belief, is in part the anthropological and psychological investigations into the concept of archetypes. However, also, more recently, there are new scientific discoveries which are here underpinning my own capacity to sustain belief in the indigenous traditions. For example, we receive DNA from both our mother and our father, but in the cell organelles named mitochondria, which are responsible for cellular respiration, there is an independent set of DNA which we receive only from our mothers. This is scientific data which contains the seeds of fully validating the need, defined in Aboriginal tradition, that we eat specific food substances depending upon what Kinship category the plants and animals belong in also. More particularly, that the over arching patterns of Kinship, in every of the world’s ancient cultures, are sustained by matrilineal moieties, which are extra-marital, is able to be validated by modern science. Yet traditional cultures explain it far more simply through use of allegory. You, and I, are all either crows or eaglehawks. As a nungarrayi, I am an eaglehawk, and that is the predominant category I exist within. My husband ought to always be a crow. My mother’s husband, my father, is also a crow, but exists within a different category of crows. Crows tend to have narrower cheekbones than eaglehawks, and that distinction is really very obvious among us all only by looking at one another’s faces.
However, just in case our eyes are failing us, there is also a modern science which is proving the distinction between crows and eaglehawks more precisely. It is in the field of immuno-genetics. It has been discovered among mice, and other subjects of the researcher’s work, that all mice have either one, or another, of two basic groups, of molecules on the surface of their skin. The molecules are named “Major Histo-compatibility Complex” molecules, or MHC for short. In mice, say the two sets of MHC are named A and B (aka crow and eaglehawk), then when A group mice are left to survive breeding with only other A group mice, their immunity and life expectancy decrease, and the same if B group mice live only among other B group mice. Yet when A group mice intermarry with B group mice, immunity to disease instantly improves. This scientific research in immune-genetics unequivocally proves Kinship in the minds of all persons whom have experiential validation of how Kinship regulation is effective.
Apart from within the science of immune-genetics, there is also potentially manifesting recently scientific research which might be able to validate the archetypes, from within the teaching of cognitive neurology. There scientists are accessing the expediency of Magnetic Resonance Imaging to regulate observations of what conditions enable one person to read the mind of another. What they are learning is that nobody can ascertain just anything from within the mind of another person, but if the person whose mind we are examining, has been asked to choose from a set of ten facts, or objects, each of which correlates with one archetype, then other persons are able to correctly assess which archetype correlation is being made. When the total set of 26, is collapsed down into 10 forms, those are the actual distinct biological distinctions. Normally those ten are expanded into the twelve more often described in mythology and religion, by doubling up on one archetype form, in which the story line is one which everybody is strongly receptive to. The Dreamline which passes through Uluru is one such storyline.
Now, I need to add a new layer of complexity to the picture I am here painting. The Judaic teaching of Kabbalah, in its original form, as a set of individual reconciliations of the allegorical references of Torah with the historic references of Talmud, contains, now also within written down forms through Zohar, a set of lessons about how knowledge of the basic set of twenty six, collapsed down into twelve, distinct story lines, and human bio-physical capacities, can be used to control the psychology of that section of the population which has no real faith in God. Traditionally the methodology of the Jews is used only to impose law abidance. It is normally not applied to persons whom are themselves individually adept at sustaining a decent self concept and regulate their own memory. Rather, the set, of psychological manipulations, through biologically determined potential adherence to story, is applied to only those persons whose immunity is depleted through sexual engagement outside of the extra-marital matrilineal moiety rule. The depletion of immunity, is understood within Religious teaching about health, from Kabbalah, and the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt, through to Ayurveda and the flows of Chi versus cha, to be caused by having sustained some level of damage to the memory, congenital or acquired, in which there is a lack of internal consistency in correlating perception of the self with social perceptions of reality.
In today’s society, many persons, and many criminal persons, have access to the methodology of Kabbalah. The methodology is the same but the social effects have been made to become askew with law abidance. The psychology of those whom criminals use the techniques against, is detrimentally effected such that the memory capacity is weakened further, and the mind is forced to engage in perception of criminality, and the false logic of criminality. In the most extreme examples of abuse of the methodology, a mental disease can manifest, which is known as a genuine multiple personality disorder, or syndrome. Use of the techniques of manipulating psychology, through knowledge of the basic story lines, and how each distinct form of human biochemistry might respond to each story, requires ritualised pleasant experiences for it to take effect.
The fundamental fact is that each of us, with each our own distinct kinship status, or “skin” as my nungarrayi name denotes among Warlbiri speaking culture, have one specific story in which we are best able to sustain a healthy mind, and thereby a healthy memory, and thereby are best enabled to behave in accordance with health giving principals. The Jews always traditionally used the technique to enable persons whose memory was lacking, to stay within that story which best enables them. Criminals, including those members of the Christian clergy, and other religious officials, whom use the method wrongfully, use it to prevent health, in an effort to assert that the victims of their abuses are behaviourally ill minded, and so therefore are the real criminals, whom ought to be who the rest of society blames for crime.
I will write that out a second time, with use of shorter sentences. There is a psychology technique which belongs to those whom have law abiding religious expertise, and which can aid other persons to improve their memory and immunity, only as real need calls for. That technique is being used by criminals in our society. The use of it by criminals, is distinct in the effects of that use, rather than being distinct by whether or not the person using the technique is a prison inmate or a member of the clergy. Criminal use of the technique causes the victim to engage in sinful, and otherwise unlawful, behaviour, which weakens their general wellbeing. Law abiding use of the technique has the opposite effect. Every aspect of the technique is regulated by the use of ritual. Therefore, those rituals with which we are familiar, as enabling us, can also be used to set up a pattern of entrapment into criminal use of the technique.
Notice that when I write out this information, in each paragraph I am writing the same basic knowledge, yet structuring the information within different patterns of thought associations, in which we can contrast the information with other aspects of the information, differently in each different paragraph. Each paragraph is made within the psychological regulation of a different one from among each of the twenty six story lines. The more forms of sequence in which I can express the same information, the more readers will be able to comprehend what I am saying. I can do this because I am a nungarrayi, and my story engages me in the sequence of accessing every other sequence, but only for being able to make words about the law, so as to make law explicable. Normally that is a Djungarrayi man’s Kinship function in social contexts, to be the law talker; the Rainbow Serpents of Aboriginal Australia. Normally also Djungarrayis and nungarrayis are somewhat feared because of the capacity to trigger the memory of any other specific bio-chemical inclination for story.
Significant to what I am saying, is that I knew myself well, and knew myself to be a nungarrayi, and knew of what my capacities are as a nungarrayi, before I experienced the ritual abuse. After I experienced it and recognised the experience to be alike to that I had already been told about, I did a bit of research among American psychologists publications in the internet. It turns out that only persons whom are in the story line that is the same as nungarrayis and Djungarrayis, or/and also the story lines of Djangala and nangala, can sustain a real complete recovery after experiencing the rituals which are designed to impose multiple personality disorder. Maybe that is just because it is our story to be bloody busy bodies, getting into anybody and everybody else’s business. But if that is true, then it is because we are also biologically inclined to be able to cause a good effect by nosing in on other persons business.
Each story line has its unique strengths and weaknesses. When the teaching of Kabbalah is used within a regulated law abiding culture, as it is used from ancient times within Aboriginal Australian culture, (that being why we have skin names), the strengths in each pattern of bio-chemical possibilities are brought to the fore. When criminals use the techniques, the weaknesses are drawn upon by the criminals, as though to excuse their own behaviour.
My own authority to make words about Kinship in defining it like this, is recognised within Aboriginal culture, to be due to my presence at a traditional Corroboree during the eve and dawn of 26th January 1988, on the site of Captain Cook having claimed Australia for the British, at Kurnell. It was a significant ceremony performed for the distinct and express purpose of reinstating Kinship for all of Aboriginal Australia, inclusive of those of us whose ancestors had passed-as-white for many generations. At the time I was, at only nineteen years of age, extremely impressionable, and my witness of the event left and immediate indelible impression on my psychology, in which I have been fully disabled from denying Aboriginal cultural precepts ever since. The experience was outstandingly positive, and conditioned me into perceiving Aboriginal society as more wholly loving and accepting and protective than the mainstream of Australian society.
However, what I experienced of ritual abuse, in the first instant, was a direct attempt to thwart the work of all those committed and obligated to that, and other similar Corroborees. The very concept of what Kinship is, had been abused in the way it was being defined among some portions of modern urban Aboriginal society. That is, those portions whom are aligned with organised crime. Within which the concept of Kinship has been branded as a capacity to sustain belief that we can project the contents of our own mind into another person’s mind. The reality of that fallacy, is that if any such capacity could ever be proven, then it is only true in effect, when and if, all the rules and regulations of Kinship codes of conduct towards one another are bound and adhered to; and usually also when there is a very low level of societal input into the formation of the mind’s habits. That is, perhaps if we are raised in the bush, and to the degree of sensitivity required for hunter gatherers, and know only few persons, all of whom we interact with in the most ideal manner possible, it could perhaps then be sustained as a possibility to be able to ascertain that we can put an idea from our own mind into another person’s mind accurately, or be sure that what is in our mind, is being received from a specific person at a specific time and place. It is a form of mental abuse to try to convince a person whom has been raised outside of very ideal conditions, that such a psychological capacity could be real. Drug users tend to be very susceptible to that form of mental abuse, because while using drugs, they tend to notice more readily, how it manifests that many persons minds attune naturally to the same ideas at the same time within the same spheres of influence. But human minds are very susceptible to being convinced that we are causal to what we truly are only being receptive to, and so drug use often engages in fantasies about being the cause of unified thought patterns, or, in seeking to blame another person for being the cause. Drug user’s fantasies are not Kinship, and I have authority to dictate this from within the real Aboriginal tradition, even when what I am saying is opposed by other Aboriginal persons.
There is another specific matter of cultural regulation from within Aboriginal culture, and also familiar to us from the Abrahamic religions. That is the adherence to sustaining each our own unique human conscience. Take care not to confuse conscience with consciousness, since more often than not, our mind is not fully able to cognise, and thus comprehend, upon what logical basis the conscience makes its decisions. The function of conscience, is innate, but also can develop and improve through the life cycle. It is at its most basic the feelings of wrong being painful and right being pleasant. That is, we feel good about ourselves and are able to anticipate pleasure, when we behave in a way that harms nobody, or at least only causes that any unavoidable harm falls upon our own self; and then we feel bad about ourselves if we ever engage in harmful behaviour, even when we can not consciously recognise that our behaviour might cause harm. That bad feeling is alike to an anticipation of painful consequence, in which it is a fear that, if we can recognise as a fear, within our conscious mind, develops the faculty of conscience. The aim of a good conscience is to sustain the physical capacity to experience life as pleasant.
The mainstream of modern industrialised and secular cultures in general, is not sustaining enough opportunities for children to receive experiential lessons in developing the conscience. That is the most significant factor in making any person be at risk of ritualised abuse.
In every instance of exposing ourselves to potentially harmful situations, even if everything seems quite normal to the reasoning mind, there is that niggling feeling of something being not quite right. We need to learn to trust that feeling. That is what Aboriginal initiations are for, (therefore is also why sensible persons all realise that an Aboriginal initiation has never really been the acts of sodomy which criminals have portrayed that Aboriginal culture engaged in). Most survivors of childhood abuse, whom are in a real recovery from that abuse, have engaged the use of their conscience to enable that recovery. That is why most survivors whom have truly faced the reality of childhood abuse, are more likely to be extra sensitive to, and sensible around, all the early warning signs that any child might be vulnerable.
I can here categorically state that I have been in situations in which there were sort of half hearted attempts to ritually abuse me, by Aboriginal men, in which both I sustained my good conscience intact, and they theirs, and in which all that really occurred was that they demonstrated to me what the ritual abuse present in the Aboriginal community comprises of. Yet within that set of behaviour and feelings, the mental associations which were forming, were of the men performing sexual assaults against me, so as to prevent me from disclosure of certain facts about their ritual abuse. It was as though we all knew that the abuse was not taking effect, but were all also pretending to go along with belief that it would. Those sort of situations arose because there were active threats being made against me that non-Aboriginal men would, most likely more violently, violate me within ritualised contexts, unless an Aboriginal man stepped into that function. The pattern I was thus exposed to, is a pattern which is prevalent between men in prison, (except that no Aboriginal man ever tried to so much as suggest to me that he was going to sodomise me, but rather warned me of what to avoid in his company so as not to engage him in associated behavioural pattern triggers), in which often an Aboriginal man will step forward to enact abuse upon another Aboriginal man, in knowledge that if they do not, then worse abuse is likely to be enacted against both men by a person among the non-Aboriginal prison population, (or even a more dangerous Aboriginal man). What I am here defining, is that we are able to use our faculty of conscience, to guide our behaviour instinctively within the patterns of causing least harm, even when our reasoning mind is not effectively functioning.
That is a cultural precept of Aboriginal culture, and also from religious thought, in which the survival and recovery rate , from having been abused, tends to be higher. It is a precept at the heart of twelve step programmes, for example.
Twelve step programmes are also the most obvious familiar example of the Australian mainstream having a cultural basis for belief in the patterns of Kinship also. Each step belongs within a different one among the set of twelve stories which the whole set of twenty six can collapse into. This information gives us the clearest possible conception of how recovery is enabled to manifest, and also thus, what it is that needs to be combated within the mental process, so as to enable that recovery can be realised. You might notice an implication here in what I am now telling. That almost any form of social, emotional, psychological, and/ or physical abuse, whether self inflicted or socially inflicted, engages in similar sets of patterns. The next chapter will address that more specifically.
What exactly is ritual abuse: The range of social behaviours which come within the framework of analysis of ritualised abuse, including some analysis of the grey area in between child rapists coaching of children, and the more strongly ritualised coaching involved in conditioning adults into making themselves, and potentially also children, vulnerable.
It is very difficult to discriminate exactly what behaviourally delineates ritual abuse from any other. That is because of the full range of forms of ritual which could potentially be engaged in. For example, if a clergy man has engaged in satanic rituals to abuse those whom confess their sins to him, at what point to we delineate that the abuse began, and might it not have been during a normal church service?
I myself would define what the Nazis did to Jews, Romani, socialists, homosexuals, and others, in concentrations camps, as the epitome of the whole array of ritual abuse. The hallmarks of what the Nazis were doing, are a good starting point for developing a clear delineation between ritualised abuse and any other form of abuse.
Those hall marks are: an unspoken threat of extreme violence, but which is being socially denied; the presence of social conditioning which enables that what feels wrong, also seems to be the normal and right mode of adhering to cultural precepts; that the whole experience embodies facts so humiliating and degrading of basic human dignity, such that it is difficult to speak of the events without fearing inflicting suffering upon those whom hear the story; and that the whole level of that secrecy, is furthered by the abusers defining the abused as insane if there is any attempt to speak about what really happened; therefore, the whole nature of the abuse is to cause that the social context of the abuse pattern cannot be described as abuse without that description carrying a branding of it being insane to so believe, and therefore the abuse entails a most basic failure to validate real experience, in a way which often manifests real mental illness type symptoms; in addition to these factors, there seems to always be some level in which there is use of ritualised behaviour which is used to trigger specific memory associations, which are often only occurring subconsciously.
The key to recovery is to impose upon the mind a compulsion to ensure that the subconscious patterns are observed in the conscious mind, and that fact, when combined with the basic abuse and infringement of the sanctity of adherence to culture, tends to require survivors to engage in behaviours which can seem insane, as the method of regaining full sanity. Because of the need for sustaining a level of conscious awareness of the subconscious mind, there are examples of the use of drugs, which is being forced upon victims, having also been the victims way out of the situation, but only if there is immediately available the sort of support as can be provided by a twelve step programme designed for survivors of ritualised abuse. The nature of ritual abuse is that it causes a psychology in which avoidance of real engagement in criminal behaviour patterns seems to be the only way out of that exact behaviour. There are only rare examples of the use of drugs, or sexual conduct, having been enabling of escape from further of such. However Aboriginal culture is adept at teaching how to later avoid specific behaviours, by first falling into those behaviours, and so there are existing examples. Having said that much, I need also say that what was done to me was an attempt to abuse my psychology into experiencing belief in paedophilia as an inevitable act: but in which my own psychology was resilient enough to never succumb to the abuse, and to constantly seek any other method of escape from the abusive psychological patterns which were imposed upon me by enforced behavioural conditioning. Basically what I am saying is that there is a line, that cannot be crossed, and by trying to push us over that line, the criminals can only give their own game away.
The sort of techniques which are engaged in, at the worst examples, include: rape of mothers by men whom are imagining that he is her child and that she is the rapist; threats of harming the children and spouses of those whom are being abused; enforcing unwanted pregnancies upon women destined to work in the sex industry, since giving birth tends to make female involuntary contractions stronger; sensory deprivation being imposed socially, such that the only human stimulus occurs when engaging in drug use, and/or letting rape occur without complaint; basic threats of violence coinciding with the presence of a semblance of normalcy only when the victim is engaging in behaviour which seems to be consenting. Being a non-drug user is how I myself managed to avoid the sex industry, despite having been repeatedly conditioned into finding that path inevitable.
That is also how I happen to have come into contact with women working in the sex industry, whom were wanting to disclose to a person whom could believe in their experiences. I have met two women in the situation of having had pregnancy forced upon them, and then been forced to give up their child to a man whom is essentially only a pimp; and whom have let that happen, and let themselves become prostitutes for men whom are also using the brothels at which children are being raped, to give those men somebody to blame; all because they are being threatened with the consequence of their own child being forced into child prostitution if they do not so behave. Obviously, there is a clear way out, which is disabled if drug dependency is a cause of the prostitution. But that way out is fully dependent upon being able to trust that the police have no involvement whatsoever with the sex or drug trade. The women whom have disclosed to me had no such belief. I have also spoken with another acquaintance whom is a prostitute, but whom works for more exclusive and higher paying clients. She affirmed that she did at first decide to become a mother on the basis that it would enable her to earn more money in prostitution, however she has enabled herself the income level at which there was less risk to her of loosing custody of her children, mainly because her pimp married her. That pattern is not uncommon.
As for the worst of what happens between men, it is normally within a more extreme set of threats of violence, and is a set of behaviours which tests the parameters of a man’s biological functions, including: how fast he might throw a punch; whether he can be forced to ejaculate during sodomy, either as the penetrator or as the penetrated; whether his faeces is excreted from his anus being penetrated, and what the faeces is like; and then his experience of being socially defined by that set of biological parameters, all ascertained at threat to his life. That is the experience of every man whom I have met whom has been in prison, including of those whom entered prison buildings only in the course of their employment, and not as actual inmates. Every of them also affirms that nobody exits prison without such experiences, unless they are plain clothes police.
Obviously sodomy is being inflicted upon females also, but my own experience has successfully avoided it enough to not have been exposed even to stories about those acts. All I can thus say, is that the damage to the spleen is more harmful if in conjunction with, or before, a pregnancy, yet perhaps the experience for women, although being more harmful to health, is less degrading since sexual stimulation can not be imposed through internal massage of the prostate, as happens to men.
However, now that I have just spat out the more shocking facts, I ought to define what this chapter really need be about. That is how, such acts of abuse, are differently engaged in when in conjunction with ritual, what the rituals entail, and what the qualitative difference of the experience thus is. The marked fact is that ritualised abuse rarely, (and perhaps only in prisons), starts with any clear indications of threats of violence. Normally the ritualised behaviours are engaged in first, without clear signs that abuse might become also a part of the rituals. As survivors, and persons not vulnerable, we could add that there could be some signs in the characteristics of the perpetrators, and that is true, yet the abuse most often is occurring in the sorts of social situations in which we have no control over the sort of persons we speak with. We might not like our milkman, but still pay him to deliver the milk since he is the only milkman in the suburb, and it takes a brave person to say “I don’t get my milk delivered anymore but only because I don’t like the milko”. In today’s society it is even more suitable often to say that we forgot to pay the bill than that we didn’t like the person we were making our checks out to. For example, our schools teach children to decide what subjects to choose as electives based on what they want to be when they grow up, rather than on who the good teachers are. It is a principal of social justice of innocent until proven guilty, in which there really is not anything wrong with lying and saying that we forgot to pay the bill, just so long as we can validate to children that there was a bit more to it than that.
In fully criminal contexts, that principal of innocent until proven guilty, is being misused entirely, as though it is a right to present the self as innocent even after having been proven guilty. The basic underlying fact in this, is that criminality is defined by an actual incapacity to conceive of law and order as a real social possibility. Because of that, criminals have an equivalent level of certainty that they will be able to convince others of their ways, as any of us might be certain in the necessity to reform criminality. Obviously, the defining experiential reality of children, must be what underlines our efforts. So we know that if any abused child, knows of even only one other child, whom disclosed abuse and was protected in consequence, and became overtly happier and more socially enabled thereafter, then the acquainted abused child stands a higher level of probability, and even possibility, of also becoming able to disclose. Thus the most basic underlying fact of the innocence of childhood, is the stable sanction in which law and order depends. In which we might readily comprehend that all persons whom commit ritualised, and other abuse, are lacking that basic experience of being raised from infancy within a presumption of innocence.
Within this analysis, what is possible to accept, is that often criminals are not themselves able to actualise awareness of how far wrong it is that they have behaved. However, normally they are also enabled to form the intellectual reasoning capacity in which they can identity that their behaviour is not socially acceptable, has been identified in public as harmful to others, and is at all times the fault and problem of the individuals whom enact the behaviour, rather than of any other persons. Yet that intellectual reasoning capacity, is not accompanied by any real understanding of the level at which their behaviour might have infringed upon the well being of those whom their crimes are against. Basically, if a person has never had their own sense of innate wellbeing, they cannot identify with any process in which a loss of such well being is experienced.
Various societies have various methods which are condoned of sanctioning criminal activity. Many societies often first attempt to cause that the criminal tendency of the mind, is labelled as a disease, and perhaps medicated, or even exorcised. (Within the Aboriginal tradition, the exorcism of criminality might be more likely to be associated with either birds or insects than with marsupials or forests, for example.) The point at which it is normal in every society, for social sanctions to mitigate against defining criminality as disease, and rather define it as a behavioural fault of crime, is when the sanctity of childhood is impinged upon. Thus even criminals, in their efforts to conceal their belief patterns, tend to want to portray any act of crime against children, as far worse than what they themselves might ever have done. That is why, in the prison system, a person convicted with crimes against children, is labelled as a rock spider, and broadly hated by every other prisoner. Yet the fact of criminality is defined by that labelling of ‘rock spiders’ not always being fully accurate; and there are examples of men whom have committed no crimes against children, having been labelled as rock spiders, often only for seeking protection from the prison guards. In fact, within criminal contexts, every attempt to reveal that fact, engages in the person attempting to expose that fact, being branded as thought also a real paedophile and rock spider. There is the obvious reasoning that only a real rock spider might try to say that not all rock spiders are actual offenders of crimes against children. Yet there is also real social evidence that men whom have committed no crimes against children are being branded with that reputation while in prison, being placed into prison tattoos.
If a family have a son whom is imprisoned for being drunk and disorderly, and whom was always very responsible in respect of children, and known to have enjoyed a happy safe childhood, but he has been given a rock spider tattoo whilst in prison, then that family have certain evidence. There may well also be much more evidence that we can normally socially accept, among those families in which all persons are conscious of acts of child rape occurring, even if secretive still about that, of the perpetrators of child rape, having been imprisoned without becoming branded as rock spiders. I have witnessed a single case of circumstantial evidence of that being true. The basic lesson in this, is not to let one set of criminals determine the sanction for another set of criminals, and never to let any set of criminals define any category of criminal activity. Obviously also there are criminals whom believe that they are performing a social service for the benefit of children, by branding rock spiders as rock spiders. Yet clearly there are strong behavioural indications that those persons are still being a victim to their own childhood experience, in which the social responsibility of such labelling ought never be let to be their own to take up. There is also a level at which individual belief in each our own individual capacity to accept social responsibility, has to be measured against ability to first accept responsibility for our own recovery, and then sanctioned appropriately.
The practise of tattooing, between men in prison, is a ritualised behaviour, and one which neatly illustrates the effect of ritualising behaviour. Why on earth might men not be able to prevent themselves being tattooed with a rock spider tattoo, we need to ask, especially when other men carry their prison tattoos with a certain pride and dignity. In fact, a social study of prison tattoos, perhaps made by an artist rather than by a sociologist or criminologist, might factually provide the best set of evidence we could obtain about the social facts surrounding engagement within ritual abuse settings. Perhaps there are tattooists whom have worked over prison tattoos, whom might socially contribute to such an analysis; but we need to bear in mind that all tattooists need to navigate the criminal world so as to conduct their profession as artists, and so are vulnerable to being prevented from providing all their evidence. I might also add that if there are tattooists whom have been provided with opportunities to avoid obvious criminal contexts of regulation of that industry, they are probably also being prevented from doing tattoo work over older tattoos obtained in prison.
The question of acceptance of relative levels of social responsibility, and defining of socially sanctioned behaviour, is at the heart of what enables ritual abuse to occur. If there are no persons in positions of social authority, whom have shouldered a greater responsibility than they are adeptly able to cope with, then there is no possibility that their functional position of social authority might become a power abuse. So the first fact which defines a ritual abuse context, is not the quality of the actual basic ritual practise, but the phenomenon of rituals having been learned to be conducted, by persons whom cannot fully accept the responsibility of the social function of imparting information by ritual.
The value of the ritual is in its repetition. Rituals tend to belong to that group of obvious facts in which we breed our own familiarity of thought associations. For example, my mother once shared her bedroom with an older aunty whom ritually washed her feet in ammonia every night, and so my mother experiences a higher degree of repulsion for the scent of ammonia than most persons, because she did not like that aunty. It was the repetition of her relations behaviour in which her mind formed a set of repulsions which determined her own behaviour thereafter, in never using ammonia to clean with in her own house.
What are our own rituals? Are we engaging in ritual by turning the television on when we get home, for example? What distinguishes a ritual from a habit? Rituals are no more than habits which have sustained a higher level of social valuation and evaluation over a longer duration of time than only the isolated experience of one child in one family. So in fact, my mother’s relation was not ritually abusing my mother, but only habitually ignorant to how ammonia might distress a child’s sense of smell. Yet the fact of my mother’s relation’s behaviour, was odd enough, that it can be said to have been given a false high value by the person engaging in the behaviour. That is always true of rituals when they are used for criminal purpose. However, the definition of ritual demands being defined by both a pattern of habitual repetition, and also a pattern in which the behaviour can be socially recognised in other contexts, external to the abusive context. In the most extreme examples, a clergy man conducting satanic ritual abuse, is not dissimilar from the clergy performing successful exorcisms, which is a real capacity among skilled clergymen, just as it is a real capacity for Central American Alligator Totem holders, and real Aboriginal Wirrun. The power of the abuse is embodied in the fact that there is already a set of cultural sanctions existing in which the behaviours being engaged in, are appropriate. Thus we must recognise that what is inappropriate is the concept and belief within the perpetrators mind, of what the meaning in the ritual is, otherwise they would not be able to conduct abuse through the ritual.
I might identify here, that the forms of behaviour in which ritualised habits were engaged in within my own presence, are not forms of behaviour which I can afford to reveal in any public context, since any person whom comprehends how to use that knowledge to stimulate the pattern of being abused within me, might be able thus to. This fact needs to be held to and fully regarded by all persons working in professions in which disclosure of ritual abuse occurs. For example, there are instances here in Australia, among criminals, of the forms of ritualised behaviour which were instigated within the Hilter youth in Nazi Germany. The rituals rely upon older rituals, such as flag raising, or flag waving, are have been caused to have a different set of actual associations than those of real viable love of one’s motherland. Yet if a woman attends a rape crisis centre for counselling about having been ritually abused, and the ritualised context was associated openly with Nazism, and the counsellor is themself showing dress habits which arouse association with Nazism, such as perhaps only even having their hair bleached blonde, then it is extraordinarily difficult for the person whom was abused, to really fully disclose. The simple association with blonde hair being equated with social status, might cause that the victim being counselled, sustains an irrational fear that the counsellor has some power over them in the situation. There are two distinct points here. One about being able to afford to disclose in social contexts in which the specific rituals are normal and healthy, and another about the potential for a new person whom is familiar with the same set of rituals, (eg. going to a hairdresser’s), to by accident use some authoritative verbal command, which could impose a victimised thought association unnecessarily, whether intentional or not on the part of the person with authority.
Thus the depth of the harm of ritual abuse is noted in that it can cause a social invalidation of the victim’s real sensibility to what they have been experiencing.
The best way to define what is the set of behavioural engagements which ritualised abuse instigates, is to use a healthy model of how ritualised behaviour can be socially fruitful, and provident to good health.
I will provide two examples, one of a seemingly bizarre, but nevertheless positive, behaviour, and another one of a very common and standardized behaviour, both of which are fully sustaining older rituals than we can historically trace.
What I am going to ask you to sustain belief in, is that every actual social ritual, of any sort, has at its basis some key which is in reality scientific rather than only superstitious. That is, the ritual is not able to be aligned simply by associated beliefs, but is factually defining of the patterns by which the natural world is obedient to certain laws, such as gravity. For example, perhaps if we all lived in tree houses, we might frequently engage in rituals which prepare younger children to face their any fear of heights, and those rituals will be defined by the science of gravity. Often the basis of ritual is that deceptively simple. Here is another example: we might not need for our parents to have told us that masturbation can cause blindness, to realise that if we are obsessive about our personal regard for what the mind can internally conceive of visually, (that is in some persons, but not all, associated with masturbation), then in those moments of looking through an inner eye, we are not opening our eyes to the real world around us. What I am pointing to here, is that fact that when we can scientifically validate the basis behind any ritual, then we stand a far better chance of recovery from ritualised abuse. The essence of recovery is in scientific understanding of the paranormal, or of the world of religious and superstitious belief. Most severely ritually abused persons have witnessed what might be defined by police as paranormal events, when witnessed by police officers directly. Such witness, if it is not acknowledged by society’s mainstream of non-ritually abused persons, makes an individual further vulnerable to more acts of ritualised abuse, since we all have a social need to be in the company of those with whom our experiential reality can be shared. For example, if a ritualised abuse context engaged in use of specific tarot cards as subtle warnings of real danger being present, (or if the perpetrators used tarot cards to regulate when abuse would be enacted), then use of tarot card readings becomes beneficial to the recovering survivor, but only if they are provided with a less circumstantial, and more scientific basis within which to believe in what the tarot is.
The first ritualised behaviour which I want to use in example, is that of a female acquaintance, who learned from her mother, a social and private habit, ritualised by family tradition of honouring the behaviour and objects involved with the behaviour. The habit is of engaging in conversation with stuffed toy animals, whom never reply, but in whom responses are assumed. The ritual is to greet the toy animals every time upon entering a room in which they are kept. Keeping the toy animals is also that ritual. Yet it is rarer here in Australia for people to be actively engaging in real conversation with stuffed toy animals long into adulthood, and through into passing that habit on to children. The behaviour is in fact one which is utilised by tradition in some places, to engage the mind of persons whom have habitual patterns of blaming the rest of society, such that any resentment which the mind desires to express, is allowed to be expressed towards the stuffed animals, and thereby not towards real people. Normally the stuffed animals are given to the person who converses with them, by somebody whom intends that their friend, or child, or grandchild, etc, will be enabled to sort of self exorcise their mind by use of the toy animals, in which the giver of the gift accepts sharing equally in the burden.
The technique is taught about also by modern psychology, as a strategy for relieving stress, by accusing inanimate objects with being the fault in any situation, so as not to feel any need to accuse a person. It is also common place in society, for example if I drive through a pot hole, then I might seek to blame the government department in charge of road building, rather than blame my own driving, if it happens that I am already overly stressed about my own life situation. But if my psychology is occurring within normal patterning, then I can generally accept that I might have better been a more wary driver. In the example with the stuffed toys, there has been instance of a family bonding pattern, in which, by ritual, mother’s prepare their daughters, to become engaged in stressful adult life circumstances. Coincidently the specific example known to me, correlates with a heredity, and congenital, bowel abnormality. The reality of the ritual is quite striking, since the animals never rate any mention, until being in their company, in which they are treated alike to being fully human participants in the current social company, but naughty ones. As it turns out, each specific animal contains characteristics of the owners own personality, but which are not able to be internally accepted as possessed by the owner of the toys. Ownership of the toys thus supplants self acceptance, quite successfully, by the course of ritualised behaviours. It is more socially acceptable to speak to real living animal pets, yet living pets are less able to self defend their integrity from attack, such that very stressful situations combined with desire to project blame, are better being relieved by toy animals than by real living animals. However actual pets can fulfil the same function, and in fact social patterns of pet ownership, gardening, and cooking all also have certain ritual aspects.
Ritual plays a role in our subconscious which is the same as allegory. An allegory is a story which originated in real world events, but because those events engage with known, and knowable, and naturally repeating, social patterns, the story sustains meaning in society, even when the actual story content is contextually no longer able to be comprehended as part of the real world. For example, the word faery was originally meaning only woman, or wise woman, and perhaps the same as we now comprehend the word witch to me, through associations with Harry Potter type stories. The most similar English word is actually midwife, which means only “withwoman”. Yet today the stories which are called faery stories, restrict our perceptions into not being able to entertain the idea of the story being able to be realised. While perhaps in the past, the stories might have been given as gifts by midwives to the families of newborn babies, so as that the baby has a formulated social status, alike to being within an Aboriginal Kinship regulated society. Yet we still today give gifts of faery story books to newborn babies. Rituals are the same, we might have lost social memory of why they exist, but we sustain a social recognition of value.
For example, an acquaintance was working in the media rooms of Parliament House in Canberra, as a TV camera operator. It happened to him by accident, that he was present in room which has the purpose of entertaining dignitaries, and became acquainted with the head tea lady type guy at Parliament house. My apology to him for not remembering the real job title, however perhaps it is only that he is a silver services waiter. My acquaintance was offered the opportunity to have a cup of tea within the quality of tea service provided to the leaders of the nation. It was reported to me as a highly ritualised event. So we need to consider what reason there is for ritual in tea ceremonies, which we know to be performed in many parts of the world. From an English silver service cuppa, to a cuppa at smoko time, to a Japanese tea ceremony, to a Native American peace pipe; the reason the behaviour is ritualised, is, in part, to engage us in habitual limiting ourselves from imbuing so much of such substances that we could become addicted. Here it is far easier to realise how it is that ritual abuse can manifest. If the ritual is altered only slightly, then the use of a psycho-active substance, can be causal to addictive behaviour rather than limiting of other forms of addictive behaviour. Normally such rituals as tea ceremonies, are used to make a break in repetition of irresolvable dialogue or activity. The resting function is only one part of the psychological relief of a tea break, the other aspect is that the mind is being stimulated by the tea into a pattern which is distinct from the work place pattern which a break is being taken from. Yet we need avoid making “taking a break” become a habit which dominants the work pattern which we might very occasionally really need to rest from. It is notable in every work place, that persons whom take a break too often, are insistently encouraging of others to do so also.
That is a common form of ritualised abuse, in which many persons whom do not like to frequently drink caffeine, have been made to feel put upon in the work place, as though taking a holier than thou attitude to caffeine consumption. If a work place is vulnerable to engaging in tea breaks becoming a ritual abuse of the digestive system, that usually coincides with a level of accusatory type gossip occurring during the tea breaks, such that persons not present might have cause to fear that they are being talked about behind their back.
Back to my acquaintance with her stuffed toy animals, her own use of is very safe, since she is never likely to let into her home anybody whom might seek to abuse her through the toy animals, and in fact the characteristics she ascribes subconsciously to the toy animals, are those most resilient to attack. Since the pets are already an embodiment of her own weaknesses, and being well managed, there is little by which her rituals around her stuffed animals could be used to harm her. However, if it had been the case, which it is not, that her partner was a cruel individual, he might have been able to manifest that her toy animals take upon themselves character traits which is does not yet have management strategies for. In fact, even actually removing the animals from her could be abusive, or speaking to her about the animals outside the context of the animals being present by her own determination. So this example of a sort of odd seeming ritual, which has very ordinary explanation even though the habits of it are strikingly dissimilar from other families, (eg, most of her animals live in the living room rather than in the bedroom), exemplifies how the rituals which sustain our best interests and health, need to be tampered with to actualise abuse happening through. That is why we are more vulnerable to abuse from rituals which we are not entirely familiar with. Slight changes in ritualise behavioural patterns, need to be inserted in the first instance, without the difference being noticed and responded to within normal self defensive behaviour.
The sorts of rituals which I have been exposed to are attempts at placing traditional Aboriginal rituals into modern settings, which are being enacted by persons whom are not fully conscious of why the original ritual is effective, and whom are neither equipped with experiences of normal relations within modern mainstream social settings. They were being engaged in by those Aboriginal persons whose lives have been lived for a considerable number of generations, within a relative cultural vacuum, and whose families have been trying to re-learn cultural tradition, at the same time as learn improved skills for coping within the Australian mainstream. Therefore they are a very vulnerable portion of the population, and the rituals being performed need to only represent slight alterations to traditional ceremonies, being placed within slightly askew modern mainstream social contexts, for the whole to manifest extreme social and emotional abuse. That abuse being effective within both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal contexts simply because of the fact of manifesting the rituals as though they are already a successful blending of cultures. I discovered, by being exposed to further abuse also and outside of Aboriginal contexts in both further instances, that those forms of ritual abuse in Aboriginal settings, and using oddly reframed portions of Aboriginal rituals, are being sponsored by organised crime, in the interests of drug sales among other things. The ritual behind the first was more mainstream oriented, yet still within a framework of supposedly supporting an alternative lifestyle, or at least the freedom to engage in alternative belief systems, and the ritual behind that, was even more entirely mainstream, and normal seeming, yet the worst in effect. For example, the specific word association triggers for certain parallel, yet abnormal beliefs, were words defining ordinary daily belief patterns. Old fashioned type sayings, or old wives tales, are used by preference among the perpetrators of ritual abuse, because the fact that our minds are already familiar with phrases, and their use is socially acceptable very broadly, makes us more vulnerable. However that commonality also enables a more expedient recover y in the right conditions for recovery. Similarly the patterns of holding “alternative”, and “politically correct”, or “sound”, belief principals, can, and have been, undermined, but where the pattern of such beliefs still holds real world value, the material for recovery is embedded within the pattern of abuse. Our minds will consistently reject false associations with the labels of sustaining “sound mind”, for example, if we are within ourselves very certain as to what the real principal of sustaining a sound mind is.
So now a bit more detail about how the abuse is perpetrated, in which I will also supply the evidence of why the facts to that, also contain evidence of how recovery will be able to manifest.
Within the context of religion, there is a clear and fully defined distinction between signs and symbols, that used to be a knowledge held only by priests and royalty. Today all Australian children learn the distinction when being taught algebra. I can, for example, use the equation: 24a divided by 8b equals 3c, in which we know that a divided by b equals c, what ever a,b and c are. The letters are the symbols and the numerical values are the signs. The signs are unequivocally constant. That is, twenty four divided by eight is always three, three times eight is always twenty four, and twenty four divided by three is always eight. When we present the equation as algebra, the symbols for a time take on constant meaning also. However, if I were to tell you that a=apples, and b=apple pies, you might realise that c=the pastry multiplied by a factor of a chef’s labour value. But if a is crates of apples, and b is hours of labour, then c is what can be done to apples. The symbols lack the same constance as signs are necessarily defined by.
Within ritualised contexts, certain aspects, which will be present within both the real context and the abusive context, are signs, and other aspects are symbolic only. What occurs with the abuse of ritual, is that the signs are masked as symbols, as though a sign (which determines what is and what is not law abiding, according to principals of natural justice), might mean something other than is real. Yet so long as we always sustain our memory that eight does not equal three, then we can sustain our real sanity, if not always the semblance of sanity. I could even say that the writing system which is a set of symbols used as keys to learning the signs, are only symbols, so the written text of 3, and 8, are only the symbols, but the actual concept of a value which is known by counting up to three, and a distinct value which is known by counting up to eight, are immutable concepts. Actually, I was fortunate enough to have a Lebanese high school maths teacher whom taught us that our numerical script is originally from the Arabic, in which the number three was original drawn as it is because three angles are represented, while four has four angles, one has one angle, seven, with a cross bar seven, and eight eight, etcetera. Eg 2 was original drawn more alike to a Z.
Signs which are commonly in use by abusers of ritual are a circle for one, a straight line, or stick, for two, a triangle for three, a square for four, a pentacle for five, a star of David for six, etc. These signs are ever present in every culture and belief system. Spirals are also commonly used to represent that a story is forming, but not yet found closure. The use of spirals can thus leave the mind vulnerable in being open to suggestion, since the mind seeks to find how the story will be closed. Therefore the use of spirals is conducive to establishing social conditioning into patterns of insanity. Yet by that same token, if a spiral is being used, then the story stays open awaiting closure, in which the only real possibility of closure is for that spiral to turn into a circle through an active participation in a safe recovery programme. The signs in fact are that which recovery needs to rely upon since use of signs manifests evidence of how abuse of symbols can be disproven. So, for example, if a pentacle was placed upside down to represent that the fire element is at the bottom, and thus hell is being considered within the symbolic domain, then rather than rely upon the symbolism normally associated with hell, we can assert a replacement that the pentacle, when tip down, is in connection with touching a part of the earth where earthworms are the only possible grave robbers, and that idea alleviates the misplaced guilt associated with other comprehensions with are correlated to the symbolism of hell.
Now having noticed here, that I am still myself finding it difficult to begin to find the words to forge an actual description of the essence of ritualised abuse patterns, I might just go along with my feelings about this, and trust that the words might be best found when I feel safe to make that expression, hopefully when next I sit down to write now.
Symbols have a quality of becoming alike to signs once a person has engaged in behaviour conditioned by belief in the symbol, as though it might be a permanent sign. For example, if we always name every combination of apples and pastry, as a pie, even if sometimes the recipe baked was a tart, then the symbolism can shift in meaning depending upon what context we are in. If we stay only within the context of all use of apples and pastry together defining pies, then we are safe, but if we venture into a professional kitchen in which tarts have certain distinguishing characteristics, a person whom has been experientially conditioned to name a tart as a pie, is somewhat socially disabled.
The key information is that symbols continue to be symbols no matter what, and that we cannot permanently be enforced to belief that a symbol is a new sign.
Here is another example: this morning while dreaming I noticed a sign coming to mind, which had symbolic characteristic also, and in which the symbolism could have been chosen by me to be regarded as a sign of one thing, or as a sign of another. The constant fact was that a sign manifested. The sign was that a shape formed in my mind, as though originally external to my mind, but within my mind, while dreaming early in the morning, and awakening me from sleep, and why it was a sign was because the shape contained very distinct information of the numerical value of six. The symbolic factor, was of the mode in which six was represented to me in my own mind. That symbolism was of a representation of my own labour in that I had the evening before been crocheting, and the shape which formed was a crocheted wheel with six spokes. Therefore the symbol was a symbol of my own behavioural contribution to something which signals a value of six. But the symbolic representation is really only symbolic, since I could have chosen to crochet a flower beginning with a wheel with six spokes, but instead I am writing this work this morning, and not knowing when I might next crochet, but certain of this writing relating to the number six within all the knowable meanings of that value. I took careful note of how many spokes the wheel had, because I am educated in the meanings of numerical values when read as symbols. The numerical values always have the same meaning whether or not we know any symbolic representations of the concept of those numbers, and the regulation of how we relate to signs, is always through the symbolism associated with the signs.
So you can readily here gauge that it can be very difficult to distinguish what aspects of the symbology which defines how we relate to one another, can be altered, and what aspects cannot. The fact that I observed the wheel with six spokes being represented through my own labour of crochet work, is not interchangeable with any other fact, since I really have been recently making a crocheted item. But whether the crocheting represented me engaging in further crochet work now, or represented a labour intensive process of attending to minute detail, is an interchangeable symbol.
Normally the symbols which are socially accepted by many persons, but which are not within the experience of every person, are those symbols by which our minds are very readily able to be abused. The belief of many is a very influential factor, yet by that same token, we can caution our mind to avoid believing in a symbol just because everybody else does. In fact, if you had dreamed of any numerical value represented in crochet, how your mind interprets the symbol of the crochet will depend entirely and only upon your own previous experience of crochet and its relative labour valuation, or commodity value, and not at all upon my own experience, that is, unless you are deciding to accept my descriptions of reality as a part of the world in which we share some agreed upon reality. That world of societal agreement as to what is the normal reading of certain symbols, is where potential for abuse commences.
For example, if I manifest the mental imagery of a wallaby, I have a set of three pre-existing mental correlations. First is that which everybody shares about what the wallaby species actually is, and what it looks like. Second, is that the Australian rugby team are called the Wallabies, in which there is a football team insignia accompanied in memory by the faces of prominent sportsmen, and by the yellow jersey with green trim. Clearly these are two distinct sets of wallaby symbolism. However the third set of symbols within my own mind, in relation to wallabies, also contains a sign, but it is an experiential sign for me alone, which is not a sign for anybody else. It belongs within the realm of having been associated fully with numerical values. Maybe a person whom has purchased a wallaby jersey and engaged in mathematical relationship to money so as to buy it, will also related the symbol of a wallaby, into certain facts of signs which have been read. But their experiential, social and cultural evaluation of signs, are distinct from my own, and are associated with a distinct set of symbols, potentially. Potentially the symbolism is all the same, but it covers over a very different set of signs.
Why all this is relevant, is because of the actual manner in which false verifications are substantiated through ritualised abuse. We need to be able to conceptualise why false verifications can be manifest, so as to correct them.
So a very large part of exactly WHAT is happening during ritualised abuse, is that the set of normally socially acceptable symbols of relative meaning, which are associated with signs of unchanging objective reality, are being falsified and exchanged for a different set of symbolism, or a set of symbolism which is normally taken to have the opposite meaning; and that process of causing the mind to read meaning in everyday objects and sayings, differently and self abusively, is imposed upon individuals through a series of quite bizarre experiences which have been designed to be unbelievable when disclosed.
For example, if any child is rewarded by gifts of expensive objects which sustain social status in a school playground, perhaps like an ipod, for example, but is given such objects as reward for only their worst behaviour, or their laziest and most bad mannered behaviour, we can all recognise that the child is being conditioned into belief that they need not meet certain, normally quite fixed, social standards, and in which perhaps they are also being conditioned into not being a hard worker. In that sort of example, the child is being subconsciously conditioned into an unacceptable set of behavioural standards, and we all recognise that the child is not to blame. Yet the child’s school teachers might be unlikely to believe that the child received the ipod as a reward for swearing at its mother, while the child could seem to be feeling self righteous about using the ipod after swearing at a school teacher. It is the sort of example in which a skilled child behaviour specialist might have some real concerns about what other behaviours the child is being rewarded for, eg keeping silence as though in collusion with another family situation in which the mother’s point of view is incompatible with. What was the child really being rewarded for is the actual question. We can extrapolate from that sort of more commonly detectable example, to examples of persons whom engage in prostitution, with expectation of the reward of a relative acceptance of a specific social status, which they have been conditioned into experiencing as a reward. Not every child feels that receiving an ipod and being able to take it to school is rewarding, but only children whom are relatively unrewarded. Not every persons who works in the prostitution industry feels that purchasing more clothes to work in as prostitutes, is a reward, or it could be purchasing drugs, or renting a house with a larger bathroom to enable clients to regard their own home as a brothel.
The point is that if we are rewarded with something which causes us to engage further in a detrimental behaviour, and that is the only reward we are receiving, then we are being socialised into a self destructive behaviour. That is always what occurs during ritualised abuse. Yet in ritualised settings the depth of the abuse is more severe. More specifically however, what is happening in the example I provided of the school setting, is that the ipod as a symbol representing certain qualities, (access to money presupposing the child’s family to be hard workers who keep up to date with technology) had been conditioned in the child’s mind to be a different sort of symbol, (defining not needing to submit to female authority), which surpassed the social worth to the child of the symbolism associated with being well mannered towards school teachers, and the rewards associated with that, (which might also be in connection with being hard working and up to date with technology). We can often associate this sort of replacement of socially acceptable symbolism with abuse, when we observe it in children, but more normally when we observe it in adults, we associate the phenomenon with those adults being criminals, and thus if the adult had not been intentionally of a criminal mind, the rituals of abuse which imposed upon that adult certain behavioural triggers, (often very subtle yet socially disruptive), the whole society is being made complicit with perpetuating the abuse cycle. But in no more guilt than children in a playground might want to know what tunes are on an ipod.
One of the odd aspects of the ritual abuse which I experienced, is that one Aboriginal man whom was himself abused to the extent that he participated in abusing me, even knowing it was wrong to, has woven through the pattern in which I had been abused, the outlet of a capacity to expose the abuse through writing about it. Very often the abuse which is engaged in by criminals whom know how to enact ritualised abuse, has a formidably psychological pattern of terror associated with speech about the abuse. But not only that speech is inhibited through the active purpose of the criminal perpetrators, also it is that the abuse causes that the person’s life thereafter is always lived within a higher degree of stress, by having been forced to become sensitised to danger from criminal sources more finely, while being desensitised to danger from not behaving in a way socially acceptable to the mainstream. That fact is true even in recovery, and even when still able to be mindful of what behaviour is enabled to successfully engage in mainstream society. The fact of a more finely triggered stress response, which at its best is alike to a post traumatic stress disorder. Constant stress causes that a higher level of cortisol is present in the mind, and the flow of cortisol actively inhibits the parts of the brain which engage in speech. At times of prolonged high levels of cortisol, the brain can even become impaired in the quality of its speech function, and I certainly notice about myself that there have been times when I manifested only being able to communicate successfully at all through writing, and needed to relearn how to successfully communicate through speech in certain contexts. Being interviewed is one of the most common contexts in which I still find it very difficult to talk unless I am taught that I will be allowed to express my whole story and not be mistaken by the presentation of only portions of it.
That fact underlines another aspect of ritual abuse. That the perpetrators will seek for any information at all available, about the person whom they want to abuse, which can be construed to reflect poorly upon that person. That is, they will seek out evidence of the persons past experience, in which that person had behaved at fault. But the fault is not placed into its original broader social context, so no consideration is taken from the fact that the fault might have been caused by entrapment, or that the fault might have been extremely minor. Criminals trade upon small faults which would have been of no real negative consequence if it had not become the focus of criminal attention. In the next paragraph I am going to pose an example which is both plausible and possible in the real world, but is really only a compilation of various similar situations, and so is not a real world example in itself.
The original experience of slight guilt can be as simple as a mother drawing their children’s errors upon themself so as that the children need never be perceived to have been in fault. The faults which the perpetrators of ritual abuse work with, always rely upon an actual guilty conscience, but in that, the guilt can be as simple as in the following example: a mother is doing canteen duty and her own child comes up to the counter without any money, but the mother knows that she had already given the child all the change from her own purse that morning, and so neither has any money; it is the end of recess and there is not time for the child to go back to their bag to get out the money before the bell rings for return to class; so the canteen lady trusts the mother to be able to get hold of that money soon, and instructs the mother to supply to the child what the child wanted to purchase; the child knows that their mother is who is forgiving their failure to remember the money, and the canteen lady tends to regard the situation in that way also; yet between the incident happening, and the mother venturing over to the child’s classroom to make sure that money really is in the school bag, the mother is who experiences a small amount of guilt about the item purchased not having been paid for yet. Her guilt might be only about why her child was not remembering to bring the money in the first place. In this sort of really quite innocent example, what happens if that sort of incident becomes known by a person intending to ritually abuse that mother, is that the mother is caused to experience a set of abnormal associations with the imagery of the incident. Perhaps the child wanted a slice of pizza bread for fifty cents, and was given it without the money immediately being paid, and about which the mother experienced mild temporary guilt. A criminal intending to take advantage of that mother, will cause the mother to associate the number fifty, and the image of a fifty cent coin, with being in debt in general, but to almost anybody. Then also the criminal might try to cause that the fear associated with guilt can be triggered by every association with pizza. So if a perpetrator of ritual abuse had known that sort of story about a mother whom they were attempting to abuse, they might involve pizza in the ritual, and work to impose upon the mother a false belief that she is in grave debt which needs to be relieved by obtaining money in the fastest way possible. Perhaps one of three perpetrators always gets a pizza and is overly generous with it immediately prior to a second perpetrator raping the mother under threat of violence, for example, and after raping her he validates that she does not owe the first perpetrator money for the pizza since he paid for her. Then there are repeats of the situation, in which the threat of violence is made less and less tangible, with a third perpetrator who was always more affable towards the mother, now engaging in raping the mother and paying for her pizza, until it seems even to the mother that she was fully willingly complicit with her own sexual violation. In every example there has been pizza used to trigger a fear of guilt in the mother. Then the three male perpetrators might introduce the mother to a working prostitute and inform the prostitute to give the mother pizza before discussing with her that she might also want to work as a prostitute. This specific example is purely hypothetic, but the fact is that it is normally more difficult to persuade mothers to prostitute themselves than to persuade other women to, but the brothel industry sustains an active place for men whom prefer to have sex with mothers so as to feel able to blame her for being a bad mother. If there are men whom will pay for that, then there are others whom will seek out how to provide it. Perhaps in the first place, how the mother became engaged, was by being invited to go on a cheap holiday with some other mothers and single women, to which children were not invited. She is most likely to be a single mother whose children might be with their father while she avails herself of a cheap holiday among other mothers and their friends. She might have had no idea about the associates of those whom she knew, or that men might be present on the holiday, before she attended. What I am exposing in this hypothetical example, is the extent to which ordinary normal life can expose us all to situations in which we are somewhat vulnerable to placing ourselves in danger. Perhaps the information about the pizza was given to the mother by another mother, who is a wife to one of the perpetrators, but does not know that he has money invested in brothels.
The perpetrator of almost any form of abuse, always work to cause that any guilt in their victims, is made to repeat, but that the repeating of the guilt is at first from only a subtle memory trigger, in which a new habit which is complicit with crime, can be made to feel rewarded thereafter, as though only then relieving the guilt from what was at first only memory, but now has a further association with being complicit with criminal activity. I will say that again more clearly. When there is any memory present of guilt, even if only a subconscious memory, but that is known of by those with criminal intention, the criminals seek to replicate, or partly replicate, the situation of that guilt. Then they impose a condition in which there is a lie, that the guilt can only be relieved after becoming complicit with their own crimes. They make that condition seem to be fact by surrounding the situation socially with a set of irresolvable escapes. For example, with the hypothetical situation above, perhaps the mother could quite easily have escaped soon enough, but not without becoming branded by other mothers in her own peer group of mothers of her children’s friends, as though she is a weirdo who runs away from a good time on holiday. Thus, her only way out is through becoming branded as potentially mentally ill. Usually the actual rituals which lead into rape situations, are all clouded in that exact threat, in which the victims mind is being lead to believe that their witness of any criminal activity could not possibly be believable if reported to the police or any law abiding person. Thereby a victim, manifests a set of false convictions that nobody might be able to believe them.
All persons whom work in the area of recovery from child abuse will be familiar with most of the sort of psychological consequences I am here defining. What it is that I am detailing is that the particular conditions of ritual abuse, are such that adults are being forced into a state of mind in which their emotional resilience, and psychological defences are no stronger than those of children. The reality is that many victims of ritual abuse are also survivors of child abuse, but are often enough, perhaps only made vulnerable because of other social factors of vulnerability, such as being single mothers. Single mothers are especially vulnerable because the perpetrators regard that they might also avail themselves of inducting the children into the same set of social conditioning into criminality, to become new criminals whom are held within criminal contexts, to be accountable to the perpetrators of ritual abuse against their mother. Crime tends to rely upon social structures which are alike to pyramid selling, or direct marketing, patterns of induction.
You will notice that in my examples I am deliberately causing that the line between what can be defined as ritual abuse, and what is normally not defined as ritualised, is becoming more hazy. I am doing this because I believe that, as a whole society, we need to develop a better clarity about what is and what is not acceptable in our public and private rituals. For example, how many work place induction weekends, and conference networking professional development weekends, gravitate around getting drunk together in the evening? There are certain rituals which are present in our society, in which we seem to be harming only ourselves, yet in which we all are guilty of role modelling behaviour about what is and what is not socially appropriate, in which the vulnerable members of society can be functionally forced into very dangerous situations. It just so happens, in Australian society, that the social stations which are normally associated with the vulnerable, are also inhabited by persons whom have the intelligence, and wherewithal, to accommodate self and social analysis of what is happening, and thereby provide other persons in the community with information about how to sustain personal sanctity.
However there has to be a stable distinction between how we define ritualised abuse, and how we define all and any other form of abuse. The hall mark of ritual abuse by which that distinction is obvious, is that it engages in the same techniques by which the community generally engage subconsciously in the process of acculturation. Therefore, we need to understand what acculturation is, and why it is distinct from socialisation. Socialisation is more readily a conscious process, and occurs within the habitual behaviour which is sustained only really through social contact. Acculturation is deeper, and many of us often engage in the practises of acculturation quite without even intending to. For example instructing children to wash their hands before eating is a part of motherhood which we might or might not be always very thoughtful about. It is socialisation where mothers are voicing disapproval of a child who has not washed their hands, or where mothers are defining how to go about washing the hands, providing soap or a washer, or showing what taps to turn on etc. It is acculturation in the way in which the mother is unable to sit and watch her children eat with dirty hands without wanting to oppose that behaviour. She may have a reasoning attitude to why children should not eat with dirty hands, and that is a factor of social instruction, but her sensibility, in which she feels repulsion and fears that her children might get sick, is a bodily response in which her children develop their own similar bodily responses, and so become acculturated into wanting clean hands when eating. Rituals and our individual carriage of our person within rituals, define how culture is imparted.
So ritual abuse is every form of abuse which is effecting the sensibility and attitude, rather than the reasoning thought processes. Ritual abuse leaves an indelible stain on the patterns by which we discern what is and what is not believable. Whereas other forms of abuse cause effects which are able to be reasoned with in therapy thereafter. The effects of ritual abuse need that any reasoning processes of therapy engage within the same paradigm of belief as that which was acculturated during the abuse. That point cannot be ignored, as it provides the entire frame of reference for accommodating any therapeutic assistance for persons whom have been ritually abused. If a therapist accesses a pattern of reasoning which is dismissive of the reasoning patterns that were normalised during rituals of abuse, then the patient in turn can too easily be dismissive of the therapist and therapy.
To understand why this is the case, the work of those whom already inhabit two or more healthy cultural contexts needs to be taken into full consideration. I can even go so far as to say that because I had already been exposed to more than one cultural context, it was less difficult for me to notice the pattern of ritual abuse I was subject to, and to internally use pre-existing reasoning patterns from a number of different cultures, so as to refute the abusive patterns. That is still a way I conduct myself every day, since the nature of abuse to the patterns of cultural belief, is that recovery requires conscious mental assessments of what reality is, in every context which the abuse was associated with.
Having said that, I also now need to say that there is an aspect of what the abuse comprises of, which I have no normalised methods of communication left in my language for, if I only rely upon the acceptable mainstream Australian modes of communication. That is, there are certain things that I find myself unable to express without the mode of expression being heard differently from how I intend my meaning, when I speak with persons whose only culture is mainstream Australian. Gradually I am finding myself able to adapt back into the Australian mainstream, but each distinct pattern in which my habits were subconsciously effected, I have needed to examine and redefine consciously. In particular, I have no capacity still to enter into any discourse about sexual behaviour without my language seeming to define my own attitude as having been the rapist rather than the victim. Therefore I have needed to fully rely upon an Aboriginal Australian cultural paradigm to communicate certain facts. For example, much can be expressed in saying only that I am a nungarrayi, and that I have experienced the police harassing every Djangala man whom has approached me, but failing to protect me from the approaches of Djungarrayi men behaving offensively. Then I can add that the policing behaviour I witnessed was within my own biased experience, offensively similar to the patterns I experienced being subject to by organised crime; and in having framed the second statement by the first, I can impart a meaning which is almost beyond me to state within the mainstream cultural paradigm.
I am going to rely more here upon the Aboriginal cultural paradigm, with specific reference again to kinship. Frankly, I do not know to what extent my need to rely upon this cultural paradigm was caused by the positive influence of attendance at a traditionally oriented Corroboree during 1988, and then reinforcements of that lesson, and to what extent it is a development caused by the fact that the abuse I have been subject to was far worse in the elements in which it was engaging in mainstream culture. I have already stated that there was cultural abuse happening in rituals aligned with both cultures, but there are three factors by which to understand why I need to rely upon indigenous culture to express myself here. One is that indigenous Australian cultures all sustain a factor in which the form that ritual abuse takes can sustain a frame of reference, whilst in mainstream society there is no viable frame of reference in which I can speak about it without myself being defined as equitably guilty to the perpetrators, only because of pointing to the fact of the frame of reference of ritual abuse existing. The other factor is that the actual situations in which I have been raped, are in a clear one to two ratio, of double the quantity having been from within the mainstream Australian paradigm to the quantity which was within an Aboriginal paradigm. The third factor is like an interplay between those two factors, in which I was at all times conscious that the Aboriginal paradigm of belief in which I was being abused, was not the real cultural belief of tradition, but was a paradigm already abused. While when I was being abused within the mainstream Australian paradigm, it was abuse within that exact pattern which my family had instructed me to believe in as safe.
Criminals whom perpetrate ritual abuse, tend to themselves be obedient to a much broader and more ill defined set of concepts of what the reality we can share really is. Broader but also with less detail. However, one fact of criminal practise and belief, is the adherence to certainty of the patterns of archetypes in human behaviour and adherence to story, which have a biological basis. In fact, Kinship, seems to be a factor of culture which criminals often attempt to disprove but find that rather it formulates the basic unchangeable facts within which their criminal perpetration of abuse needs to function.
Criminals whom perpetrate ritual abuse, fully consider the fact of a person’s “skin” as it is defined within Aboriginal contexts, as a fact of biology which defines what sort of abuse might be effective against that person. There are a number of distinct ways to abuse persons through knowledge of their place, or skin, within Kinship. The most obvious one is to force sexual relations outside of the ideal patterns for marriage. In fact, often what occurs with ritual abuse, is that there is a sequence able to be discovered, of which men to use to rape a woman when, to cause her to be least able to recover.
Obviously the men in prisons are always also engaging in similar patterns in respect of rape, and in fact prisons are able to be validated as venues in which men have researched how to most expedite the abuse of another person, including what sequences of interactions are most abusive to what persons.
Here I will also depend somewhat also on an analysis of mental disease patterns which I have learned of through the study of homeopathy theory, and which are compatible with Aboriginal culture and also esoteric forms of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. There is information in the realm of religious teaching about health care, in which it can be ascertained that certain mismatched sexual relations, can activate certain ill minded mental association patterns.
For example, if sexual relations happen between two crow people, or two eaglehawk people, then their minds are more likely to contemplate events at a much further removed time. While if sexual relations happen within mother-in-law and son-in-law avoidance patterns, both persons tend to form patterns in which cause and effect become mistaken one for the other. That particular relationship between brothers and sisters, as defined in Kinship, at times need not even fall into actual sexual relations for the worst potential patterns to be able to be detected. That is complete loss of memory of certain facts, events, sequences, and positions. If rape were to occur in that pattern, I am lead to believe that it is a process of finding that the whole sensibility is failing in a very frightening manner, and in which both rapist and victim, find themselves desiring only to find other persons to blame for the event of the incident of rape., but also find a likeable quality to hating their own self in respect of the incident also. Persons raped within that specific breach of kinship, most often find that they are almost entirely disabled from not also themselves violating other persons, even if only in attitudes since behaviour can always be modified, and many survivors who never commit rape themself are in this category. The problem is really that the function of self knowledge becomes less possible through that particular invasion of sexual security. I might add that the principal of the teaching of every religion, in which the first task of any convert is to “know thyself” is that same principal upon which any recovery of emotional and psychological sanctity is built.
The sequence in which I have just now described the three sorts of rape patterns of breaching kinship regulation, is the sequence in which one breach can lead on to the next, unless the victim is well educated as to what kinship regulation rules are and why they exist, but also why criminals might be attempting to impose breaches of such. Within various indigenous Kinship rule patterns, it is normal for it to be forbidden for marriage within the matrilineal crow and eaglehawk moieties, although there are exceptions to that enabled in some contexts, but only when there is not other option, and only when there are also other distinctions in Kinship status, eg the Pintupi way. Also, there are other, different Kinship systems, eg the Wiradjuri way, in which any and every instance in which there is a breach to that matrilineal moiety being extra-marital, the individuals concerned are fully ostracised from all other Wiradjuri people. The story in which that happens, includes that the ostracised individuals used to travel to the Ngunnawul land for the bogong moth season, where it would be easier to survive as individuals, and the present existence of the Aboriginal tent embassy, unsupported by the Ngunnawul land council, is an example of that story being adhered to. However Wiradjuri were not so bothered about the mother-in-law son-in-law avoidance necessity, that is predominant in may desert cultures. A couple who break that rule in some places would have been killed in a mercy killing, within the belief that they are not likely to be able to exist thereafter as fully personally accountable men and women. However, in every single existing Aboriginal kinship pattern there had been rules forbidding same skin sexual relations, and even where such had occasionally been used, it was recognised as a pattern instigated by a small, and criminal, portion of any group. In fact the patterns of coercion into such relationships, are known of still today within Aboriginal society, as are the patterns in which such coercion can be exposed for what it is, and subsequently avoided. Common place in all Aboriginal communities has always been a particular marital allegiance pattern, which was not that most ideal, but neither broke local rules, and was able to manifest a replication of only the advantageous aspects of the psychology of breaking the brother sister taboo, without manifesting also the disease state of such wrongly aligned relationships. For that reason, many many Australians, whom may or may not have any actual Aboriginal ancestry, but whom have come in contact with criminal behaviour and the machinations of organised crime, tend to be orienting their belief within an Aboriginal dominated cultural paradigm.
One very particular advantage of the Aboriginal cultural paradigm, even in the forms in which cultural abuse has taken place, is that it enables that persons whom have been psychologically abused, and/or have abused themselves through drug use, can still sustain their own place in society which need not be expected to be criminal, whereas in the mainstream culture there is far less possibility of movement out of criminally defined identities. However, it is a cultural paradigm in which a greater degree of expectation for individuals to be responsible for what they have been subject to unintentionally, is at all times demanded. It is worthy to note this pattern in respect of the general work in therapeutic environments towards recovery from all kinds of abuse. Indigenous Australian culture has a strong element of a ‘sink or swim’ pattern to its teaching, and the contexts in which any therapeutic aid might be found, tend to be more highly guarded. At times that is obvious by the total failure of the mainstream society to be able to observe what healing has progressed in the Aboriginal context. I will here go so far as to add, that there is a possibility of active affiliation with Aboriginal culture, that can be noted among many Australian drug users social behaviour patterns, and that criminals are responsive to that pattern. The existence of such patterns has two facets. It is enabling of many persons whom might never otherwise have recovered, to find the psychological tools for recovery independent of an active interpersonal intervention into their life; but it is also very detrimental to the basic processes of substantiating the real Aboriginal tradition and how strictly self disciplined that is even today. It is a cultural paradigm that began through the invasion process by the intermarriage of ostracised Aboriginal persons with convicts and soldiers, but was thus, always extraordinarily exposed to criminal patterns also, and had long embodied a high degree of rape of the women only because there were not enough women present at the outset.
This history is significant to the modern contexts in which ritual abuse has been happening here in Australia, and also the context in which therapeutic recovery might be possible. What is distinct about the paradigm, is that the concept of the devil, or a devil, is not always aligned with that of mainstream Christian and Judaic thought, and in fact the Aboriginal paradigm sustains a concept of the devil which has more in common with Islam. Perhaps, it ought to be even argued, that the model of belief in which the devil is not isolated as a distinct individual who tempts us, and who can be blamed for our own failings and falls to temptation, but in which a devil is understood to be an aspect of our individual psychology in which we are failing our self, is a model in which the perpetrators of ritual abuse cannot impose certain satanic type beliefs and practises very readily. That is, within the Aboriginal cultural paradigm, even in its worst aspects of misinterpretation, it is not possible to trick a person into supposing that they might become more powerful as individuals by going into allegiance with Satan, because that state of mind is known to be the one in which an individual will be held to be accepting of their own guilt more formidably. So what I am saying here then, is that most of the ritual abuse which has happened here in Australia has no elements of Satanic, or Satan promoting, belief. Most Australians are more likely to find Satanic type ideas too amusing and absurd to be enabled to be abused through confusions of the symbolic representations associated with that form of a Devil. That is not to say that no Aboriginal persons believe in the Devil, but that such belief cannot be manipulated and abused into self advocacy for crime or sinful behaviour. I know an Aboriginal man, whom while he was working for the government at Palm Island, saw visions of Satan and took the experience very seriously, enabling him to then escape from being abused, although in a later context of working in the prison system, he was ritually abused, through the abuse of workplace related rituals. The significant fact is that Aboriginal culture, disenables any perversions of the mental constructs of a devil, or devils, and demons, such that the forms of ritual abuse being conducted, tend to need to be more clinical and make less use of mythos.
That clinical type of demonstrative analysis of victims by perpetrators, enables that victims can observe the process of their abuse more avidly if the victim is sustaining a good memory throughout. It also enables that more thorough investigation of what embodies the abuse in ritual abuse contexts, can be made. Though I don’t advise the practise of undertaking anthropology sociology and psychology field work among criminal ritual abuse settings, the information which might be ascertained from students of those disciplines whom have experienced abuse, is substantial and could genuinely assist the professionals whom work in therapeutic fields.
Within this modern Aboriginal cultural paradigm of being invaded, and being in face to face situations with the criminality of a white based cold climate culture, the fundamental ideological abuse that has been happening, is in connection with cultural concepts of the principal of forgiveness. It is being taught by an acculturation process, that to forgive another person is to enact the behaviour which they might have enacted, so as to prevent them from; and that attitude is being misinterpreted to be representative of a blacker complexion person’s way of sustaining having a forgiving character.
Before finalising this chapter, I need to provide another aspect of information about how the actual biological function of Kinship regulation manifests, since this knowledge is the actual basis upon which persons whom engage in perpetrating ritual abuse, base their efforts.
Within an understanding that there exist 26 story archetypes, we can say also that which archetype our own biology embodies depends upon the location of our birth and also our parentage. But there are two biological expressions of the 26 archetypes. One is permanent, and can be detected by the shape of the skeleton, while the other is learned, and is defined in Aboriginal culture as “skin”, but is regulated by how the mind most readily associates to story. Ideally, we all have that skin which is inimical with the pattern of archetype which is suitable for our bones. However, it is possible to force a person, or for that person to chose to attempt to take a social advantage by, corresponding their habitual thought associations within the skin pattern of a different archetype from that of their own bone structure.
The distinction of the bone structure has a brain function capability also. We are each enabled in only one of the archetypes, to be in and of our self, an active participant in the story.
That means that when a person engages in any behaviour modification practise, whether willingly or not, that they can not become active in that process unless it is a process of habituating the story of the archetype which is carried in their own bones. Fortunately for the health of all of us, there are as many as eight out of the twenty six archetypes, in which persons are, by the nature of that archetype, able to be active in every other of the stories. Those persons own either Rainbow Serpent Dreaming, or a Crocodile, or other Lizard Dreaming, and have always been known in traditional cultures as the Shaman and also Priests, healers, teachers, and lawyers. These persons can fulfil those roles simple by nature of having a broader range of self imposed behaviour modification patterning which is possible in conditions in which a whole community becomes inflicted with certain detrimental psychological conditions.
Most persons, however, have only one story in which they participate with active engagement in determining the course of their own life story. What is outstanding about discovering what story is your own, is that you then know what might never change, and so can figure out how to factor that in, and delay or expedite certain events. That is, when you know what your own story is, you can engage in behaviour which sets the pace of progress from beginning through middle to end, and can find that your story has many very minute repeats as well as one overarching pattern, and also yearly, monthly, weekly, and seven yearly repeating cycles. The aim, for example, of narrative therapy, if regarded from within a Kinship believing cultural paradigm, is the guide a patient into accessing the self belief which adheres to their own archetype, and aid that progress of that archetypal story, so as that it fits in best to the environmental conditions.
However we all are receptive to being influenced by the stories of the other archetypes. If we marry correctly we can also become active in the archetype story of our marriage partner. But if we are not correctly aligned in marriage, we become receptive to a story line in which we cannot participate, and indeed might find it extremely difficult to sustain full consciousness of. All of our minds are receptive to any story which is influential in our environment. We are receptive all the time whilst watching television, and the stories we witness in the television are what we might then Dream of. But we cannot be active in that story, unless it is our own. Many persons might have noticed this, that if there is a television programme in which the story line is one we can readily related to, we love to watch it all the more, and might even dream of living our life as a character out of that television programme.
The main effort of ritual abuse, is to cause that a person will not be able to be an active participant in the outcome of their own life, and so therefore every effort is focussed upon preventing that person from accessing their own story’s traditional archetype pattern, and any information about it.
Each archetype story form, can be associated with specific postures. Criminals who are adept at perpetrating ritual abuse, have been trained to visually detect what postures belong in what story line. Social contexts in which such persons are relating to their victims, before, as well as after, those obviously abusive violations which happen, such as rape, involve situations in which the victim is under and immense extent of observation by as many persons as might already have been abused such that they find their lives stuck in criminal patterns of exposing human weaknesses. All the criminal minds in the environment are engaging in observing what postures in their victim, correspond with what belief. They will be looking for any evidence of already existing postures which belie the minds actual current belief in the story of how life is, and can in future be, effectively organised for healthy happy outcomes. The aim of the criminals is to cause that certain beliefs will only in future manifest, when the posture is expressing the opposite.
Often what happens is that during rape, the victim will be coerced into letting themselves be raped in as many different postures as is possible. However, the disturbance to the mental associations with various symbols of meaning, in connection to particular postures, can be conducted also through abuse of language and language meaning. For example, if every time a person bends over to do up a shoe lace without squatting down keeping their back straight, a certain thing is said in which there is a strong implication of upper body and spinal strength, and that happens every time the person happens to be doing up a shoelace over a few weeks, then there has manifested an experiential false reality, which criminals then try to capitalise upon forcing repeats of. Remember about the mother in the school canteen, well if criminals do not know of instances like that upon which to build falsehoods, they will artificially construct such situations. In this example, perhaps the person was feeling guilty about not squatting to protect their posture while tying their shoe laces. The postures associated with each archetype, are those postures which present the weaknesses of each archetype, and define the crisis of each story. They can be perfectly correlated with the postures of natural species. For example, when I am feeling lazy, my body accepts the posture of a Kangaroo, while if I am feeling devious, my neck moves like a snake. In my own dreamtime story, the Kangaroo digs an hole in the riverbed which is too deep for swimming in, but makes a good permanent drinking water supply, then the dingoes come and chase everybody away to the four corners of the world, and the Kangaroo jumps into the pool, sinks to the bottom, and miraculously turns into a Rainbow Serpent, who arises. Then a wallaby and a black headed snake manifest in the rocks of the valley above the pool. Before any of the instances of ritual abuse I am referring to had happened to me, I had read that story, in many versions from many cultures, and then had travelled back to my birth place, finding to my shock that at the top of the road called big hill, driving upon which I faced my fears to an unprecedented degree, there was a red bellied black snake and a rare wallaby species. Just like traditional Aboriginal communities describe of their experiences of travelling their own dreaming. The fact that I saw the right animals for my story, is an indicator in Aboriginal culture of myself having attained a degree of self knowledge. The point is, that therefore, I was able to observe the criminals around me, and I observed that they were very attentive to my posture, and what animal it resembled, but also attentive to every aspect in which my own attitude of mental associations was not being fully honest to that posture. They seek to further such correlations, which prohibits self knowledge.
The solution, is to avoid any posture which is not perfectly human. So to hold oneself in the posture of a Buddha statue, while internally remembering the associated mantra, or do perform a Yoga salute to the sun, or Muslim Salat, are all behaviours which are prohibitive of the effect of the ritualised abuse. In investigations of these facts, take careful note of how perfect the posture is in old photos of Aboriginal persons during situations of first contact. Keeping a good posture is regarded in every culture to be the most self guarded we are able to be. We can also say about Christianity and Islam, that Jesus represents the capacity of one individual human body, to have sustained a totally human posture throughout his life, since that is what enabled his resurrection. That is one significant aspect of his contribution to human thought, that he proved it possible to never fall into an animal posture, and is an accurate interpretation of what Qur’an says of him which is at times translated to mean that he could not be crucified, but does not actually translate to mean he was not hung on a cross. So to sustain belief in Jesus, or Isa as he is called in Arabic, enables a person whom experiences abusive environments, to substantiate to themself during the abuse, that the abusers themselves are who are in the wrong. Sustaining self knowledge also enables that where and when we ourselves have been in the wrong, we are also enabled to notice how far exactly we might have been wrong, and accept that if retribution for being wrong is real, that it need be only that exact extent, and not so far as criminals would have it.
At its worst, what is being perpetrated in ritualised abuse settings, is that one layer of abuse is committed, and then the criminals observe over time how the survivor is accommodating that abuse. The criminals take careful note of how the survivor has managed to neutralise the effect of false imagery associations to symbols which are ill aligned with the rest of society. Then the criminals engage in a secondary, or third or fourth, process of ritually abusing their victim, so as to infiltrate the psychology with false refutations of what ideas were successfully was refuting and repudiating earlier rounds of abuse. What is caused in the eventual outcome, is that real love is associated with as though hate, and hatred is perceived within an ill minded concept, as though love. That extreme of abuse is a ready consequence for persons whom were already vulnerable, but is a very difficult thing for criminals to achieve against very psychologically resilient individuals.
Among Aboriginal Australian men whom have been in prisons, there are some striking examples of men whom have proven themselves unable to be unhinged by the experience. To my witness they tend to be very tall men who are totally at home with eccentric behaviour, and quite internally calm and resilient, yet permanently very self absorbed. They tend to be whom is best able to refrain from any expressions of fear. I believe that what they have experienced, since this is how my experience has been lead by such men, is of letting the criminals believe that they are achieving success, until a situation arises in which the criminal observation is not nearly so formidable, and there are only likely to be half hearted attempts to perpetrate the rituals required to re-institute abusive behaviour patterns. Then only at those times to stay fully behaviourally in control of yourself, during which there could be less offensive attempts made to reassert ritualised abuse. The aim being to collect a full set of all the possible experiences of the patterns which can be psychologically caused by ritual abuse. That is, not to be exposed physically to all the possible methods of physical abuse in which rituals are use to wrongfully disturb healthy acculturation, but rather to overexpose the self psychologically to the whole set of psychological disturbances. What manifests is that it becomes almost impossible to behave within normalised social patterns, until the full set of psychological disturbances is experienced, at which point all the criminal psychological patterns sort of turn inside out and begin to disprove only the criminal intention. That process, as soon as it is successful, leaves the survivor without much available means of re-engaging in the mainstream culture, but having accommodated all the possibilities of psychological abuse of symbols of meaning, and being left with evidence of what reality manifests in signs which can be read for meaning, there is plenty of space available for re-learning how to engage within normal culture. Yet the individuals tend to be very intolerant of any inconsistency in the mainstream culture also. Therefore they tend to be unlikely to be on good terms with police. It is these men whom are sustaining a well patterned subculture within the world of Australian criminal contexts, in which escape of innocent victims is possible. In fact, their efforts are well able to be noticed, in respect of there being fewer Aboriginal youth falling into drug use today, than only relatively few years ago.
So even within the worst and most abusive contexts, it is possible to find a resilient hope of happy and healthy cultural and emotional survival, to be present. That is why it is possible to speak about what the manifestation of ritual abuse is, without the descriptions of it being harmful in themself. The key to the recovery process is to not be afraid of social status, and of being mistaken for the bad guy, but to regard that fact when it inevitably manifests as the result of what ritual abuse engages in, as a capacity and responsibility, to hold the perpetrators, whose reputation a victim had been landed with, accountable through yourself also owning that reputation.
The elements which Aboriginal culture sustains, in which such a phenomenon as a hybrid culture, within the malformed acculturation processes of criminality, can be supported, are a way in which it is common for pockets of culture to embody an accountability process in which all postures are already being read for opposing meaning, but within a sustainable cultural paradigm of contextual referencing of meaning back into the mainstream of traditional Aboriginal belief and postural content of culture. Aboriginal Australians are not the only indigenous group whom sustain a way of teaching through using opposing seeming meanings, when necessary. In fact, in Aboriginal culture, it is only pockets of the community in which such communication styles, as can actively combat criminality from within criminal contexts, are relevant. However in South and Central American Indigenous culture, that pattern is prevalent. There are also elements of it within some portions of Chinese culture, with particular reference to the Art of Kung Fu and its schools.
In fact, earlier in this chapter, I mentioned that I would present two examples of relevant and normal ritual practise. The one which I have presented is that of my acquaintance whom has a family tradition of expressing externally their self talk through dialogue with stuffed animals. The other one which is rather more obviously a positive ritualised context, is that of the practise of marital arts, and indeed most sports training. Martial arts rituals, or the ‘form’ which martial arts practitioners make habitual to engage in fluid exercise regimes, are used by ever section of modern society, from the police through to the criminals. All of us know somebody who can perform a marital arts form.
In the pure sense of what defines various set forms, as taught by the Shaolin monks, for example, is a sequence of postures which engage in promoting a known and knowable set of thought associations. Each form could even be adequately corresponded with just one of the distinct forms of kinship archetype. Clearly, we might all hope that the particular school of martial arts which our own children or brothers attend, is one which is held within good esteem by local police, and which utilises a very traditional, and known, pattern in the form. We all realise that there exist illegal uses of martial arts forms. So it the analysis of each teacher’s method, and how law abiding they are in their own self, becomes critical to choosing a good school for children to receive instruction through. These are rituals in which it is socially appropriate to recognise that a large impact upon the psychology can be sustained by behaviour in combination with verbal suggestion; and in which we take care to ensure that the suggested ideological correspondences with posture are law abiding. We take such care simply because it is also socially appropriate to recognise that examples have been in existence, in which martial arts training has caused misplaced ideas and has caused trainees to become attracted to criminality.
If we could equate the difference between a kung fu school which is run by former military employees, and engages its students in all the most openly certified ranking systems, with the kung fu school which is being conducted outside of every observance of police, and from which some of the graduates have graduated only into prison; with that same difference between a group of mothers at a primary school, using the P&C association to organised a group holiday only for mothers, but that is a fundraising event for the school canteen, and the group of sometime school canteen volunteers who use the school playground or car park to socialise, and happen to there found the idea of going away for a week’s holiday together, but without being transparent with everybody they invite, about whom else might be in attendance; then we can more readily accept that the hypothetical situation I described earlier, is not an impossibility. How we discern what is safe is guided by the original processes in which culture was implanted in our subconscious, that is, by acculturation. How would you navigate your decisions about which yoga class to choose, if in knowledge that there are local yoga instructors whom have a bad habit of having sexual affairs with their students, but did not know which yoga instructors were which? At the bottom line it comes down to instinctive feelings. Perhaps there are situations in which a single mother could leave her child with its father, and go away on holiday with other mothers she knows from the school canteen, and the family members of one of those mothers, and even perhaps start a new sexual relationship on holiday with a bloke who is generous about buying her more pizza; and how she might trust that she is not getting herself into danger, is by being able to trust her feelings.
The main consequence of ritual abuse is that the victims are socially trained, through fear being implanted about imaginary, (or intangible but real threats of) social and physical negative consequences, into regarding their own feelings as untrustworthy. I live under a standing threat of being abducted and systematically re-abused, including with violent sodomy, if I keep on trying to find a readership for this, and other similar, writing. But I trust my instinctive feelings that the social need for more persons to obtain the knowledge I have learned by experience, but without their needing to experience abuse so as to learn how to navigate its recovery, is a social need that outweighs my own personal fears, and which is large enough for me to seek some protection from among those whom might find what I write is personally or professionally beneficial. I also must add that I am primarily motivated by wanting my children to be able to grow up on a world in which the mainstream of Australian society contains accessible information about what ritual abuse is and how to avoid it. Even the sort of information which might only make us all more discerning in what we watch on television, could potentially bear fruit in encouraging children to be more discerning about what we grow accustomed to being socially exposed to.
However, I must come back again and again to the point of defining what ritual abuse is and is not. It is not always too weird seeming. It is not always very overtly being ritualised, or readily discernable as abusive, until it is too late to get out of without becoming negatively socially branded. When I say not overtly being ritualised, I mean by the sorts of rituals which we imagine as overt rituals. It is always ritual but we must accept that most ritual behaviour occurs in very everyday social settings. We don’t need to be the head silver service waiter in Parliament house, to be ritualising making a cuppa every few hours. Church is the most socially acceptable context in which it is normal to acknowledge that we are witnessing rituals. That means that we are more likely to orient our belief about what ritual abuse is, with any clergy whom are abusive and happen to utilise their training in the clergy when engaging in abuse.
Potentially any new job induction training could be emotionally and socially abusive. There are many famous examples of persons whom were abused, often ritually, through what was needed of them to undertake their profession. Elvis Presley is an example, though clearly he made wrong choices about drug use. Princess Diana is another example. Although I would not say that the highly ritualised setting of the Royal family’s life, needed to be abusive, only that it can be experienced as abuse to enter into that social context without feeling wanted and genuinely loved in it. Clearly rituals can be observed, especially in the Royal family, to be able to provide a sense of security and stability.
Children’s need for security and stability, is most of all determined by ritualised behaviour in their parents. For example, there are children of families whom have an itinerant lifestyle by choice, such as the agricultural show families, but whom, by ensuring that their children are engaging in very formulaic rituals, have managed to provide for their children no less social status, security, and safety, than has any other family. In fact those children are growing up with a somewhat more astute observance of what defines potentially dangerous situations. This is because they have one set of very stable conditions about the need for their family to be on the road combined with a need to keep up with children who go to school in the same place all the time, and within that stable set of conditions, which are tempered by ritual, those children can readily observe how different locations and different other social factors might disturb or not disturb the sanctity of their own safety and safe conduct of rituals such as having a home school on the road. Making setting up camp, a ritual of safety precautions, which must be undertaken before the pleasure of sitting down to dinner, can provide similar experiences to any family on a camping holiday. So we must realise that the rituals in which a person can be endangered, are those rituals which are not surrounded by set rituals of risk assessment. That is why the protective behaviours programmes for children are so very successful and significant. The protective behaviours programmes provide children with a ritualised, or formulaic way, of assessing all other rituals.
Notice that a base line belief I have worked from in this chapter, is that each specific posture which our body can form, has one corresponding certain mental occurrence, in which the person whose body is in that posture, is being attentive to the sensations of their body. This idea may seem quite extraordinary to many persons, but it is a standard idea from within many religions, and is why, for example, a Yogi might want to sit in the lotus position, not because it is uncomfortable, but because it enables a particular mode of thought. That a posture can enable a specific set of mental correlations, does not mean that it will be the same set of mental correlations in every person at every moment of being in that posture. It does mean that certain very beneficial mental correlations can only be attained in specific postures, and it also means that certain other postures, those which are known to cause poor health, can always be used to inhibit self decent mental processing. A part of the teaching of religious methods from many of the world’s religions, is that we need to support the posture by sustaining our internal sensibility to our body. When we are both holding ourselves in a specific posture, and also being mentally attentive to the sensations of the posture, we are more able to sustain inner acknowledgement of the relationship between that posture and the normal thought patterns which that posture enables. However, it tends to happen that if we often have our mind off dreaming of a far distant time and place, that what is in our mind might not always be associated with our immediate posture, but might be an opposite of the immediate considerations of the position we are in. Criminals use that fact in respect of any posture, but because they rely upon our minds being relatively unobservant of the immediate environment, they also might often be encouraging us to overindulge in the sorts of substances which cause our mind to think faster and perhaps be more likely to think of distant times and places. That means it is far simpler to ritually abuse a person whom has been using an amphetamine, or even only having drunk a few too many cups of tea. However it also means that having overeaten pizza or any other food, or having had one too many at a neighbourhood barbeque, is destabilising enough of our feelings of what is wrong and right in any given situation, such that we are more vulnerable. We can be trusting our feelings and know our own instinct to be good, but if we had a bit more beer than usual, we may well be having a mental association with a far distant time and place, about which our feelings are associated, rather than with the immediate environment. So while posture is particularly important, what is more important to remember is that every aspect of our own behaviour, and our capacity to sustain self discipline, are the most important factors in how vulnerable we could become.
When a person has been detected to be vulnerable in any way, then criminal perpetrators will try to engage in a far more disruptive form of ritual abuse of their victim. At the most extreme, as well as the utilisation of various criminal behaviour with violates the victim, there is also a strong element of engaging, also through ritual behaviour, that the only positive reinforcement of being safe, or being out of danger, or even receiving the nourishment of a meal, or having any friendly engagement with other human beings, is among persons whom are normally likely also to be participating in the abuse technique, but without that being obvious. Sort of similarly to a work place having an employee who seems to be quite remiss or lazy by comparison to the other employees, but whom has quite a reputation for being a hard worker behind the scenes, and who will tempt new employees to show themselves up if they are not hard workers. In ritual abuse contexts there will be many of such persons whom seem to have far more immediate freedom of behaviour, than is socially acceptable in the abusive context, for the person whom is currently being abused. These persons usually role model being able to get away with finding life quite pleasant within that same social context as the victim is obviously miserable. So the victim might only be able to wonder at their capacity to tolerate certain environmental factors, or alternatively, wonder how they are being enabled to escape certain social sanctions which are present.
During periods in which criminals are focussing on perpetrating the extremes of abuse against just one victim, often that person is being forced to experience extremes of guilt, alternating with extremes of pleasure. It is important to remember that both the fear which guilt is an embodiment of, and the pleasure, are part of the abuse.
In the final analysis, of course this chapter could not be complete without describing what happens to cause that a person develops a multiple personality disorder, as is the state of enough persons whom have escaped from extreme ritual abuse contexts. The individuals whom are effected in that way are always being prevented from sustaining self knowledge, by whatever method. However, in the extreme cases, in which a person cannot socially engage outside of being triggered into overtly different personalities, there is a very specific technique being used to cause that mental state to develop.
What happens is that the victim has been introduced to a set of other persons, among whom each one belongs in a different archetype kinship category. Say there are twelve persons, well the aim of the abuse, is to cause that the victim is only ever receptive in each of those twelve patterns of story and regulation of the bio-chemistry of brain function, to what one of those twelve persons wants. The victim effectively adopts the personality of each of those twelve persons in a set of twelve modes of social interaction. To cause that to happen, the victim has been forced to become extraordinarily afraid of them self in their own archetype pattern.
Before explaining it fully, I will say a little more about the archetypes. Each one has its own unique mode in which the mind is able to be active. That applies to the story line of each archetype, but also to certain neurotransmitters, which can be narrowed down to be effective in distinct brain functions through which we regulate our assessment of ideas and capacity to communicate. For example, a mind might be active only in forming words, or only in forming pictures, but when in a good marriage is enabled to be active in both. Other person’s minds are only active in regulating the shape of internal imagery, or in deciding which aspects of what they dream have a need of being repeated. Then again other persons can be active in their own internal mental constructs in respect of what posture is being depicted, and/or of the movement and flow from one position to the next. A main part of the trick of ritualised abuse, is to force a person’s mind to believe that they are who is being active in every of the mental constructs which enters their mind. It eventually becomes obvious why there are forms of ritualised abuse which are common place in the prisons: because persons whom are imprisoned and totally controlled in all their social engagement, are more susceptible to being tricked into believing that they have some control over something. Therefore, it is easy for those criminals whom are not repentant, to trick other prison inmates into a more criminal outlook, but tricking them into believing that what their mind is only receptive to, was an active mental process. When an idea occurs to our mind, it is potentially harmful, or potentially able to be defined as a sin, only if we were ourselves actively engaging in forming that idea. If we are passively receptive, then we are only being exposed to the wrong influences in the world caused by other persons criminality, which in turn causes that such ideas exist. We still need to accept responsibility for what we are only receptive to, but how we accept that responsibility is quite different from how we must accept responsibility for what our minds have been actively engaging in, as like to being in conspiracy with. If my mind became conspiratorial with committing crime, then I must accept that crime as my own equitably, so as to be able to recover from belief in the possibility of a positive effect from crime. Yet if my mind only noticed that committing such criminal acts exists, then my responsibility for what I have noticed need not be to accept the crime as my own, but to accept as my own the problem of preventing that the crime can be conducted against me.
This is why it is significant that each of us have only very set and usually singular modes in which we can be active in our mental constructs. If in a good marriage our singularity is made through a reconciling combination of that mode in which our partner is active and that mode in which our own mind is active. What ritual abuse engages in is primarily attempts to prevent that our mind can reconcile with a partners. This is because, it is often the case, that recovery from any ritual abuse, can only fully occur through engaging in a loving human relationship with a person whom comprehends what the problem had been in the abusive situation. That need not be sexual, but normally engages in a process of awareness of the content of one another’s mental processes, and is why therapeutic contexts often give a semblance of being intimate.
So what happens in situations of ritual abuse which can cause multiple personality disorder is:
A victim is encouraged to believe that the mode of expression of their own archetypal mental processes, is notable only through being wrong and sustaining guilt, and that guilt is forced to be felt by extremes (eg, causing pleasure in the victim and then showing the victim that while they were experiencing pleasure, there was another person suffering because of their behaviour:- maybe the mother who ate more pizza than anybody else, was shown later that there were children going hungry in a different part of the house, for example), until the victim becomes extremely afraid of being active in defining their experiences;
The victim is not informed that when they experience guilt in the company of the perpetrators, even if that guilt is about the needs of other persons not at all present, such as the victims own children, that the perpetrators are attempting to force the victim to feel guilt for the innocent as though it is guilt for the perpetrators, (eg, in a similar way as to how any rapist might attempt to take pleasure in their victim feeling bad about another person whom the rapist might have raped, as though the guilt is for the rapist and not the other victim);
To a much lesser extent then, the victim’s experience is examined for evidence of examples of a small amount of guilt occurring mentally within every of the twelve archetypes, and in every example, it will be a person who belongs in that archetype, whom seeks for, identifies, and then takes advantage of that guilt;
Those twelve persons, after isolating slight guilt in a victim, try to cause that the victim associates their own previous guilt with the perpetrators experience of guilt from committing actual crimes, and that is often forced through rape, but also often there might only be one two or three actual rapists;
The victim is then forced to imagine that when their mind is being only receptive, it is actually being causal, and that when their mind is active, it is being receptive to what will cause trouble for everybody;
Eventually a victim might be too afraid to engage with their world through their own archetype pattern, unless they are fully complying with the behaviour which criminals wanted from them, for example, by prostitution, drug dealing, and neglect of children, which is the usual combination being forced upon female victims, (male victims also are more likely to be forced into becoming complicit with abuse of the next victim);
Among the perpetrators there will be a set of two or three men, whom have been those who were involved in subjecting the victim to rape, and whose own archetypes are, in a set of three, that which can prevent the victim’s self knowledge, that which can open the victim’s memory to terror in experience of abuse, and who is named as a key, and that which is named as a gate, and is the perpetrator whom knows every other person whom was participating in abusing the victim, and can direct the victim towards being receptive to one or the other of the whole set of twelve persons by suggestion;
What happens is that, if the victim attempts to actively engage in the world outside of the set of behaviours permitted by criminals within the victims own archetypal mental processes, then the victims memory of that archetype is caused to become inaccessible through imposing excessive guilt but as though the guilt is from having harmed the perpetrators, then the victim only able to be receptive in mental processes, and is receptive by habit to a sequence which starts next with a pattern enforced as a key, by a “key holder” (holding the key to how to try to capitalise on that victims guilt), then moves to the pattern put in place by the “gate keeper”, who is keeping open or closed various sets of mental correspondences with other people’s characteristics, personality traits, verbal expressions, and even names:
The victim then finds them self quite unable to socially interact without adopting the personality of their abusers, even if those abusers where only marginally a party to the abuse;
When the abuse has been so extreme that the victim really cannot respond to their own name in safe social contexts, and expresses themself as though actually ‘possessed’ by one of the other twelve persons, it is usually the case that the victim was one of those survivors whom had been very active and aggressively active in attempting to combat the psychological abuse, but were so active that their brain chemistry was at a high level of cortisol, and other stress related hormone, production for a prolonged period of time, which caused some brain damage, therefore, they might be suffering from total memory black outs in respect of what has happened to them;
That loss of memory which happens very much alike to an alcoholic black out, is a sign that the victim was not letting themselves be so far victimised as to believe that they were who was causing the abuse, and that is why, when ritual abuse is reported to authorities, perhaps it is a disproportionately high number of survivors whom manifest the consequences of the abuse as a multiple personality disorder, since those whom just give up on resisting the abuse, and might even become perpetrators, tend not to manifest any mental illness;
Obviously also the other category of those whom can sustain reports of the abuse, are those whom already were able, by archetype, to be active in their mental processes in every archetype, most of such persons whom survive to tell the tale, were also successfully engaging in hiding what their archetype really is, so that the criminals were convinced very easily of success when there had been none, and so had not felt inclined to impose the full extent of severe physical abuse;
The only other method of surviving to expose the criminals in their crimes, is to feign being fully complicit with the processes well before the processes have taken full effect, and that requires that the victims can recognise the nature of the abuse early on, and know that their survival might be dependent upon feigning being fully complicit and fully convinced of the advantages of conducting such abuse.
Given what I have just reported, that to survive to tell the tale without the effort to express the story being interfered with, within the methods by which perpetrators sustaining an enduring psychological effect, is a survival that requires the survivor to have been demonstrably complicit with furthering the acts of abuse, it is no surprise to find that there are by now very many Aboriginal Australians whom were abused ritually in prisons, whom engage in re-enacting that abuse to one another, so as to convince organised crime that they are not whom is likely to expose the evidence of what had been done to them. They notice the next victim, and using the same techniques, coerce the victim into accepting that they have no choice but to be abused by somebody who knows the abuse is wrong but goes along with it to survive, or be abused more brutally by a person whom believes that they are self righteous in conducting the abuse. Clearly that social condition is extraordinarily danger filled. In fact, there are social situation in which Aboriginal participation in ritualised abuse, which is constantly trying to minimise the regulation of the abuse by organised crime, and also minimising the actual levels of physical abuse involved, is being confused with what real Aboriginal culture is. But mainly it has been only by the non-indigenous, and racist, elements of organised crime, that such situations have been described as portrayals of real indigenous culture. However, the criminals whom have portrayed Aboriginal culture like that, describe it like that to the police also, and within other government institutions, to the extent that we might be able to regard the Howard government’s intervention legislation as a direct repercussion of what is essentially only a further victimisation of one of the strategies by which victims of crime have attempted to ensure their survival.
Further to that analysis however, it must be understood why indigenous Australians are very reticent to make their experiences of ritual abuse among criminals, open for analysis by the mainstream of Australian academia and among the growing personal therapies industry. However that aspect of this paper, more fully fits within the following chapter about why criminals engage in committing ritual abuse, building upon what I have already told about how criminals take advantage of the guilt in their victims, which is guilt that is felt about emotional debts owing to other innocent victims, and not to the criminal perpetrators.
What is believed by the criminals whom conduct ritual abuse, ie why they do it from their point of view, and what is their perceived benefit, and therefore what is the disease belief.
Clearly the biggest part of why criminals engage in any form of abuse, is because they have a fear of their own criminality and wish to cover over their own guilt with the innocence of their victims. If their victims have no more fear of loosing their own innocence left, then the criminals try to capitalise upon the fear in victims for other innocent members of the community. That is why many woman let themselves be abused through having had threats made against their children, because criminals want their victims to be feeling guilty towards an innocent person, because the criminals imagine to thereby take advantage of that guilt, as though it is guilt towards their own self, and can mask their own self with the innocence of the innocent.
It is a rather terrible thing to notice all in all, but is the only viable explanation for why rapists keep on committing rape, since often it is not about any immediate physical pleasure, but more about seeking a way of avoiding further pain which is associated with diseases and death being caused by a guilty conscience in having committed crimes . Yet then the crime to cover the crime is clearly only about to further the same problem. In religious contexts, that very fact of crimes in sin to cover up other crimes in sin, is what is comprehended to be the only reason why death occurs. It is also taught that when we receive any mental imagery about our own death, that such images are not imagined, so therefore are causal to, and caused by, our own future death experience. Therefore, if we believe in religious thought, we might realise that probably the minds of criminals are very fully and almost constantly, engaged with fear of their own death, in which they are caught in a mental trap of continually attempting to escape the consequences of their actions.
If we can sustain that belief from within religious teaching, in respect of our own death, then we can also sustain a higher level of self discipline, and also can sustain less fear of what the repercussions of criminal behaviour are. For example, I only need to know that if a criminal commits a crime towards me, they will be noticing that they might die one day in consequence, and my certainty of that being fact, promotes that idea in the criminals mind, in which if I can also assert that the criminals death might be less if . . . . . . whatever it is by which I will survive occurs, the criminal is far more likely to engage in that option in their own behaviour. However, because it is most often criminals whom impose fear of death upon other persons, many individuals find it difficult to accommodate the concept of how to pose the matter of fear of death, without doing it through causing more fear than is necessary, or through repeating criminal patterns. The full story is that every surviving religion, and ever surviving older culture, sustains initiations in which men are caused to fear death. Normally to an equitable degree to which women manifest fear of death by nature during child birth. However those initiations are only law abiding within religious laws, if the aim of the person whom stimulates the fear, is to help other persons to behaviourally accommodate a thorough improvement to their self discipline, and thereby reduce the total quantity of suffering in death. Every infliction of fear of death in which death’s inevitability is highlighted, without also proving that well minded decent behaviour can reduce the suffering of death, is defined unequivocally as fully outside of religious law. The criminal method of causing fear of death is in essence a form of terrorism, while the legitimate method, which is these days often portrayed as the illegitimate method, is a way of ensuring that counter-terrorist precautions are taken. Clearly, it is real that the police regulate their policing through certain consciousness of what is likely to cause death, and by engaging actively in how to avoid behaviour which heightens fear of death. The criminal manifestation is that in which despair is caused by failure to let the human mind conceive of any behaviour in which fear of death can be reduced.
This highlights the fact that criminals depend upon a false belief in which they attempt to internally justify crime. Their false belief is that by criminal methodology, a person might find a way to benefit from the death of any other person. It is a belief which relies upon a concept that I need again here rely upon Aboriginal culture to relate. In Aboriginal tradition, after a person dies, it is regarded that the person’s “Dreaming” needs to be ‘recycled’. What that means is that all the internal mental patterning which that person sustained, which was provident to health and self knowledge, is something they will not need while dead, but is also something which another person can access through forgiving a dying or dead person some aspect of their living matter and life story. For example, a professional skill, and tools of the trade, might be inherited by a son or a grandson, at an old man’s death. The inheritor might also receive many dreams of how to use those tools, which came from the dying or dead man. As though in death his mind was enabled to teach the living. The experience of that by the living, is regarded in Aboriginal way, as an active process of recycling the dead. Criminals, on the other hand, imagine that they might steal from that recycling process only through forcing living persons to fear their death to a larger extent than necessary. What the criminals are trying to achieve is access to dreams of a healthy lifestyle, but without actively engaging in living a healthy life style. All recovering addicts will be able to comprehend what the meaning is I am here trying to express.
Criminals also suffer from a whole other swag of non-life sustaining type patterns of false ideology and mental ill heath. For example: the idea that there is no possibility of a positive consequence in the future of any behaviour, is distinctly criminal, and we recognise that fact in both the religious and the secular world. The idea that health is not for everybody, but is a function with a set upper limit of potential to experience it, is also a criminal fallacy. The idea that certain dreams, or symbols we notice in our mind, or self identifications which are accepted communally, can be bought and sold rather than earned, is also a criminal concept. We can know this because criminals are motivated by trying to acquire such phenomenon and the reputations of being identified with, but in criminal contexts there is no faith in the functions by which human beings can earn the right to certain social status associated with certain identifications, and so criminals fail to realise that it is possible to ‘manufacture’ good dreams by hard labour combined with substantial belief in positive consequence. That basic idea is what Aboriginal men engage in while enacting rituals of re-creation of natural species.
If a man dances in the posture of a Kangaroo, he is reforging and recreating dreams in which he, and his mates, get the idea of how to turn the ill mindedness which Kangaroo postures can cause in a human being, back into the actual form of more Kangaroos where such ill mindedness belongs. So he is recreating the mental processes in dreams, by which affiliation with a kangaroo can enable him to receive an exorcism from roo mentality. Criminals here in Australia, seem to have got up quite some substantial taste for robbing the dreams of indigenous Australians, and have a particular set of very woeful ideas about what Aboriginal culture is and means for the criminal mind. The fact of criminal ideas about Aboriginal culture specifically does make Aboriginal children more highly vulnerable, which is why I am going to here expose the criminal concepts. Yet the reason I can expose the criminality we are inflicted with, is because Aboriginal culture embodies a way of exposing crime for what it is.
The criminal idea which is cutting into Aboriginal cultural forms, belongs in the same set of ideas that fascism, or Nazism were an embodiment of. There are members of organised crime groups here in Australia today, who believe that the Church in Rome is sponsored and sustained by organised crime, and that sort of idea is very appealing to the young Aboriginal people whom have never experienced any positive influence from within the Australian mainstream, or through any modern Church.
However it is a false ideology which has run a bit deeper even than just the fear of being invaded, yet in that depth is a psychological assault upon indigenous Australian culture, which the culture itself is quite adept at accommodating.
Aboriginal Australian Animist faith is unique in the world, in the way it provides a mass basis upon which any human being is instructed in the techniques of shamanic belief, within the application possible only for an individual’s own storyline archetype. Many cultures embody the same premises, yet fully teach the concepts only to the section of the population whom are healers, priests, teachers, and other wise leaders. In other cultures, the lessons learned cause that a person is known to be an embodiment of Magi in its most positive framing, or of a shape shifter, which also has a negative connotation, even in positive application.
Essentially the situation is that most Animist based cultures, impose upon the whole community that only the criminals are who “turn into an animal” after death. That is, the Spirit of a human being, is caused to fear having to exist within an animal form, as a punishment. In actual fact, according to Kabbalah, it is unlawful to cause any person to fear any consequence after their death, and that fear needs to concentrate upon what the death experience will be like. Australian Aborigines are quite notable in being unafraid of having to turn into an animal after death. In fact, the consciousness is, that once dead, is it really a bother to our human consciousness? Perhaps once we are dead we might only inhabit a death consciousness? Or, perhaps we might sustain the consciousness of the worms which eat us in the grave, or of the plants which our dead body fertilizes, or of a marsupial which might eat that grass, for example. If we are lucky, we might even become “turned into a star” which is to be understood as the same consequence as “going to heaven”, is understood as in the Abrahamic religions. However, there are stories in Aboriginal culture, and notably that of the first man in the southern cross, in which it is told a man might turn into a tree with two cockatoos in it, and then turn into a star from within that tree and bird form. That is, perhaps we might descend part way down into a hell type experience, as the path upon which we might need to travel so as to thereafter enter heaven. The point is, that we need fear our death, because it is this body in which we now live, which sustains any fear, and therefore it can only be its immediate experience which contains any relevance of fear. Why fear what comes after when it is only known to be beyond what this immediate body is able to experience.
However what all this underlines is that Aboriginal culture sustains a basic pattern in which the good guys and the bad guys alike, manifest belief in being turned into an animal, (bird, insect, plant, or even bacteria present in a geological formation), or two. That is to say, there is a cultural comprehension in which it can be described that retribution is for everybody. Not because we are all just as bad as criminals, but because we are all exposed to criminality, and thus might need to cleanse the spirit from criminality by placing all the non-human life sustaining mental patterns, into an animal’s form. It is also held true within Aboriginal culture, that if we can live our whole life without noticing any criminal act being committed, and also without ever letting any criminal idea occur in our own mind, that we might then have no need of the animal identification. The original story of how it came to be that indigenous Australians all turn ourselves into animals, is perhaps best known in that of Bhyame’s initiation, thoug h Bhyame himself carries different names in different locations, and there are also other major hero-priest type figures existing throughout Aboriginal mythology. In the story of the first initiation, there were very important lessons to learn, but there was one clan who just kept of behaving too poorly to be able to learn what they had asked to be taught, and Bhyame turned them into animals, but then another group had noticed why the first group were not behaving well enough, and they also became turned into animals only on the basis of being able to acknowledge the first group, and so on and so forth, right down the line until even the women and children and Bhyame himself all noticed what the problem was, and embodied in noticing it, manifested themselves in animal form. It is not so much as that retribution is for everybody, as that if there is one criminal among us, then it reflects poorly upon us all. Aboriginal Australians show many social signs of being more afraid of that one silent criminal not being accounted for, than of having to share in paying for another person’s crimes. That is internal to each individual Kinship group in which we all share with holding one another accountable. What is also notable is that if any person is encountered whom is not within your own Kinship, then that person almost does not have a valid existence, since they are not within the frame work of local accountability.
Within other animist based belief structures, there is far more preservation of the non-criminal identification of those whom notice criminality but never engage in criminal behaviour. That is, there is no unified agreement to all pay so as to prevent that one criminal.
However, the interpretation by which criminals prefer to comprehend Aboriginal culture, is that we must, by our very nature, all actively prefer being criminals to being law abiding, since we seem to want to become turned into an animal when we encounter their self being a criminal.
This highlights another fact of criminality. That criminals tend to suppose that if we are going to have to suffer, we might as well take pleasure from that fact before it commences. That is, in respect of the idea of an inevitable death being caused by lust, for example, the criminal mind seeks to immediately make the most of the lust, while a law abiding person’s mind, tends to rather immediately seek to minimise the lust in the hope of also minimising the total quantity of suffering.
What I must make clear is that there are, and always were, long before 1788, enough Aboriginal Australian criminals existing, that the culture ever needed to have means for accommodating, sanctioning, and retributing those criminals.
Now where this situation is needing to be corrected in modern social interpretations of Aboriginality by criminals, is in the contextual concepts of what it is that is believed to be the cause of needing to “turn into an animal”. What criminals attempt to maintain, is the idea that every person whom has any element of animal identification, has that identification only because they have a criminal mind. That idea was also forced upon some Aboriginal communities by some Christian Churches, yet was also always an idea which was being combated in all relationships between indigenous Australia and Indonesians, South Pacific Islanders etc, such that the pattern in which to persuade the foreigner of the Aboriginal point of view, was already practised and recognised as necessary in 1788. That is why, for example, and Aboriginal clan ever attempted trade and intermarriage, rather than just declaring open warfare.
Why there is an immediate need to more openly than usual correct misinterpretations of Aboriginal culture, such as those which are current among criminals, is in the interests of child protection.
What has been happening in ritual abuse settings, and others, is that the false idea is being forced upon anybody and everybody, that if a person has an animal identification, that therefore they are willing to be portrayed as though they are a criminal, and even the worst of criminals, such as paedophiles. What has been happening behind the cover of massive levels of ritual abuse in the prisons, is that there are those whom are sex offenders, whom do not carry a conviction for being a sex offender, and whom suppose that they can just abuse an Aboriginal man into being socially assumed to be guilty of the sex offenders crime. That is to say, there are Aboriginal men in the prison system, whom have been branded as paedophiles even, through ritual abuse, by other men, (whom seem to be able to convince security guards of the same fallacy), and whom are actually not more guilty than of getting drunk and fighting with their mates.
The fact is that the non-indigenous criminals, whom suppose to be able to get away with burdening the indigenous community with the guilt of their crimes, have been getting away with a free reign of abusing indigenous men inside of prisons. In this description it is not only possible and plausible, but factually necessary, to extend the definition of indigenous, to any person whom can comprehend indigenous culture’s reasoning, and whom is also non-aggressive towards indigenous cultural belief. In the prisons those whom are not supporting and sustaining indigenous cultural basis, are working to condemn indigenous culture. But to put it rather more bluntly, men in prison whom refuse to blame any indigenous Australian person, are themselves being blamed to at least the degree in which they have refused to blame an indigenous person.
The sort of blaming I am referring to is for serious and specific criminal behaviour, which most criminals even, have some level of aversion to. What Aboriginal culture is adept at accommodating being blamed for, is the capacity to turn the notion of criminality into animals. That is, we are not so adept at being excessively blamed as criminals, but are very adept at being blamed to any extent for being animals. There is an important distinction in our Australian Aboriginal culture, which is not present in other cultures where any person whom accepts an animal identification, can be accurately presumed to be also a criminal. While for us here in Australia, nobody might really know why we manifested turning into an animal (in our minds and dreams with reference to the future possibility after death, and also with reference to the past before we were born), in any instance of such. The social advantage is obvious, that we can mix among criminals without being detected as innocent, and so thereby find out how to best prevent crime. Yet what needs to underline this information, is that any person whom make any wrongful accusation against an innocent Aboriginal Australian who knows how to turn into an animal, is able to be proven to be themselves engaging in criminal intention. This is true to the extent that a person whom accuses an Aboriginal person of being wrong in our animist belief, tends to prove themselves to be a cause of why we need to sustain that animist belief, and thus in each Aboriginal persons embodiment of turning into an animal, every non-Aboriginal person whom blamed the phenomenon, is also by association, also becoming “turned into an animal”. So the criminals defeat themselves by blaming the innocent. That lesson is basic within Aboriginal culture, such that even small children know that if you go blaming others you will become proven to be in the wrong. The full strength of the Christian teaching to turn the other cheek thus comes to the fore.
In this knowledge of the criminal abuse of Aboriginal culture, what I am relating also, is that there has been already too much social expectation on Aboriginal Australia to continue turning the other cheek, and that we have all, as a total national society, been engaged for the past forty years in a process of beginning to learn how to validate Aboriginal cultural method of preventing crime. Consider, for example, the extent of social stability which is sustained here in Australia by comparison with other countries with industrialised economies. It seems odd that I should be saying that our general social stability is due to the efforts of that portion of the population in which there are more criminal problems apparent, but I am not identifying every Aboriginal Australian as a part of our solution, only those whom are in fact sustaining full cultural tradition. The weakness of Aboriginal culture, if anything, is that it demands strong adherence to its sanctions, and that to slip out of the safety net of socially sanctioned behaviour, is to fall rather more confoundedly than most cultures can stand back and witness without intervening. Yet that sink or swim approach to life is a part of the cultural strength also. What needs to be combated is simply the idea that having any non-human fauna or flora identification, might be the equivalent of being an abuser of children.
However, the question arises of course as to what this basic discourse about indigenous belief, has, if anything, to do with why criminals engage in crime. The simple answer is because they imagine to be able to get away with it.
Even simpler is that every person whom sustains belief in indigenous Australian culture, is convinced the criminals will not achieve their sought after outcomes of getting away with adopting innocent identification.
At its most basic, any effort to communicate about what ritual abuse is, and why criminals do it, must also be an embodiment of the reasoning behind why criminals cannot continue to do it without being caught. However, the methods of traditional Aboriginal sanctions by which criminals are caught, are only really just beginning to be worked together with the methods of legislative justice towards effective social solutions. The criminals, in whatever their reasons are, were and can only be, wrong, and any mode of governance which cannot prove that the criminals are who are wrong, is an outmoded phenomenon.
We can thus readily hold with the idea that the persons whom suppose that the Nazis were correct in assessing that only a limited proportion of the world’s population, might ever be able to have good health, for example, are fully being outmoded in their contributions to legislative democracy.
Why I am mentioning Nazism here repeatedly, is because there is evidence among the writing of Judaic survivors of the holocaust concentration camps, that the Nazis mass murders where an active attempt to extract from Jews their knowledge of how to effect social control through ritual. That analysis is consistent with the degree to which Nazi imagery is being used today here in Australia among organised crime, and also in many other countries, and also consistent with the stories of survivors of the Hitler Youth. Nazi Germany is the most obvious example of an organised criminal effort to attempt to portray the innocent as criminals. Study of the psychology of Nazism reveals a lot about the reasoning behind ritual abuse also. Perhaps my own emphasis upon this aspect of the basic reasoning of the criminals whom propagate ritual abuse, is because of the context in which I was myself abused. Of all those whom participated in attempting to cause that I became afflicted by a multiple personality disorder, so as to prevent me giving evidence against criminals: one had been an Aboriginal man whom was brutally bashed and raped in prison as a teenager, and had never recovered, but rather eventually obtained a psychology qualification while in prison; another was another former prison inmate, a non-Aboriginal man, whom had also obtained a psychology qualification whilst in prison, and described his fifteen years in prison as having been quite pleasant; and the other was an Englishman, who presented himself as an aging feral type, but whose politics were far right wing to the extent of supporting Nazism, and whose father had been in the Plymouth Brethren, one of the very wealthy organisations which are known to conduct ritual abuse in the name of Christianity. All of the perpetrators and those under their influence sustained the fallacy in their mind that there is a set limit of happy living circumstances available, and so to ensure that their own worth was able to avail of a happier situation, it was necessary to prevent somebody else from finding life happy. They abuse each other and anybody else on the basis of belief that if they can avoid behaving as a criminal, it might only be because some other person becomes a criminal. Nazism was based in a fallacy that one nation can only find its perfect harmony between all citizens, by blaming all other nations, (and ethnic minorities etc) for failing to be able to be so very perfect as what is supposed to be able to embody real contentment. Obviously it is a fallacy in which those whom pursue it can only come to grief. It is a fallacy based in simple extremes of jealousy.
Coming to terms with what has happened to me, has only been possible through actively seeking to understand the methods and the false reasoning behind the criminals who commit ritual abuse. Because it is by that effort to understand, that the reasoning of criminals is exposed as pure delusion.
The most obvious fact about why criminals want to conduct ritual abuse, is that they imagine to be able to excuse their own previous crimes by forcing other persons into criminal behaviour. So they engage in criminal acts to impose criminality upon other persons. Within those impositions, they are quite unable to portray themselves as the innocent, as they aim to be able, since they engage in over extending their accusations of other persons within a frame work of a ridiculous extent of belief as to what they might be able to get away with. Notably they engage in processes of “selling” information about who local vulnerable individuals are, so as to enable more criminals to avail of blaming those they have abused. In fact, much of the drug dealing which happens, is accompanied by dealing in knowledge about whom is so vulnerable as that it might be possible to get away with blaming them for the drug buyer’s drug use.
Within that general picture, there have been many white bias oriented criminals, whom have promoted the idea among black buyers of their drugs, that there is a set of white mothers whom can be blamed in order to attain a better situation for black mothers. What those criminals are engaged in is a process of attempting to offset the culpability for stolen generations, back upon the most vulnerable portions of the population. Notably, the mothers whom are most likely to become blamed by white drug dealers selling to black buyers, ( blamed for drug use and other criminal behaviour, up to and including child rape), are white girls who have had sexual relationships with black men, or whom are known to be of unidentified indigenous ancestry. The worst aspect of the whole business, is that the police are also accepting the wrongful blame being projected by white drug dealing based crime, and using that information to take advantage of the black community by feigning to be accepting of a black position in racial politics, while also themselves blaming the most vulnerable whites, whom tend to be those whom have actively engaged in close relationships with the black community. What I am here saying is, that many drug dealers, promote the idea that they receive police protection from corrupt police, because they have been engaging in a process of setting up social arrangements which fabricate evidence of racism as though the whites who are more vulnerable are actually the racists, and as though the blacks who are less likely to want to work out anti-racist solutions, are the only voice of leadership in the black community.
Therefore, in investigating why it is that criminals conduct criminal activity, we ought to also be looking towards the political arena, to find out about how criminals might be perceiving that they could attain any advantage. Their obvious advantage is that of having the police focus policing attention away from the real crimes. Most victims of ritual abuse have been set up as decoys to attract policing attention away from catching the real culprits.
Conclusion
Ritual abuse is not the most common form of psychological, emotional, or sexual abuse, however it is that form of abuse which is socially indicative of all other forms of abuse which are not being prevented in the society which fails also to prevent ritual abuse.
If it is possible to ritually abuse any member of a social group, then it stands to reason that it is also possible to abuse the children and other vulnerable members of that social group. Therefore, I want to promote the idea that if we can get to the bottom of what makes any community vulnerable to ritualised abuse taking place, and prevent ritualised abuse, then we are also working to enable the protection of all vulnerable members of the community, but especially its children.
I have already described the particular fallacies which the perpetrators of ritual abuse habitual believe in, and that being able to be mindful of those fallacies being fallacies, and of the fact that the criminals whom believe in such things are quite delusional, is the most significant step to ensure that recovery from any ritual abuse can be navigated. It is also the most important aspect of preventing vulnerability to ritual abuse. Obviously the most expedient method of navigating the prevention of ritual abuse would be for the mainstream mass media to negotiate with advertisers, for the subtle psychology of advertising to engage in debunking the myths in which ritual abuse is made possible.
However, while that ideal is worth working towards, in belief that it can be attained, the whole analysis is not quite that simple. For example, the immediate world we live in, contains very many former prison inmate, of whom I can qualify any statements about abuse in the prison system with adding that every former prison inmate is a survivor, and a victim, of ritual abuse. The extent to which each is surviving is that extent to which they are able to inhibit themselves from committing psychological and emotional abuse to their close family. The extent to which they are still a victim, is the extent to which they have not yet accommodated self certainty in any of the effects of the rape by sodomy which is used frequently in the prisons to impose a loss of memory in respect of witness to ritualised behaviour. This information is not from my own immediate witness, and has been extracted painstakingly from a significant number of male former prison inmates, and close frequent observations of one female also.
In fact women whom have been in prison, seem all the more unable to communicate what is going on in there than the men are able. This worries me, but I expect that eventually women will realise there is normally always a more successful way to deal with stories of being hurt, than just to imagine we can improve the story by blaming who was doing the hurting, as though blaming might get an advantage over; and perhaps what information those women were needing, is that in East Asian cultures, if we hold something against somebody, blaming them, but without telling them what we are blaming them for, the fact of not telling is branded as insanity and as having no culture, and that is what most Asians living in Australia have been thriving upon.
I believe that one man I have me, who showed signs of having been ritually abused, could even prove to have been an undercover police officer, and must add that he seemed quite unaware of the fact that there was a whole set of criminal communication taking place around him about that fact of him being a policeman. Within that observation we might take due regard of the fact that since drugs are getting into the prisons, it is unlikely that a police officer could, or even would, go in as an inmate without the fact of their being a police officer becoming known by prison security guards, so that they could be protected. Yet if the security guards know, almost certainly other prison inmates will be warned not to engage in the criminal activities which implicate prison security guards in the same crime. So how will the police find out, especially when the police are also branding the stories of men who have been raped in prison, as insanity. Until police will start to listen and believe the real story about how criminal activity all over Australia is being enabled by abuse to me inside prisons, the police have to accept that they are also culpable for the insanity and crimes being caused. Police have a bad habit of trying to say that anybody who ever criticises the police is who is causing all the police’s fault; but in the real world we can criticise, and even condemn, poor behaviour, without accusing and blaming it as though we have any advantage ourselves in knowing about it. Perhaps the police are trying to blame members of the public who criticise police, on the basis that it is in everybody’s best interests for us all to believe in the police force being able to be effective at preventing crime. That is true, and I would prefer for my own children to be able to believe that the police, who are the fact of up keeping the law in this society, are a real responsible organisation, but the police have proven to me and my children that they do not care about child welfare, and they only care about being able to accuse and blame, even when they have got the wrong story, and are blaming the wrong people. I think the police have been afraid of becoming forced into the psychology of doing what nobody wants anybody to do, but those police who try to say it is wrong to make a story in which the police are shown up to be having their own problems, may not themselves yet realise the whole of the problems going on behind their back within the various Australian police forces. As fearful as it is to be a member of the public worrying about police making false allegations, it is even more frightening among police, what sorts of allegations they are making against each other without ever letting the story out.
All that told, the situation in respect of ritual abuse, needs to be examined through the work of prostitutes also, and has a major significance in respect of drug crimes as well. I believe that those sex workers whom were not ritually abused to force them into the profession, and have also somehow sustained their mental health by avoiding ritual abuse while working as prostitutes, may well have a key understanding for how we can all work towards improving child protection. A big part of the puzzle of finding out why ritual abuse can ever have happened, is wrapped up in the fact that the decriminalisation of prostitution was the most significant enabling factor in opening that industry so as that protection of its work force, and their families, can be enabled. Again the whole question again relates to child protection.
Whether ritual abuse has happened to a sex worker who happens to be a child’s aunty, or to a man in prison who happens to be a child’s father, or to a drug user who happens to live in the child’s neighbourhood, the nature of abuse of any person having included rituals, places all those whom they meet at risk of themselves becoming vulnerable to being ritually abused. This is because the whole ritual has become disturbed, and the person who had been abused, imparts acknowledgement of terror within the ritual, but when that happens without making it explicit what there is to be afraid of, the world fills up with imperceptible stories, that actually contain real fear, and so we feel fear but without knowing what it is that we are afraid of. When we feel fear but do not know what we are afraid of, we are more likely to fall into the story of what is frightening us, only by trying to find out what we needed to avoid.
So the whole question, although it has an obvious method of prevention, even if we are not yet fully certain of the means to engage that method, also has the concern about what might be the best method of accommodating the social situation of all those whom are already abused. It is the same sort of conundrum as questioning what to do to help the teenage boy whom was so badly raped as a younger child, that he can not have any engagement himself with persons smaller and younger than he is, without beginning to “coach” them into accepting being abused, as all paedophiles are inclined to, and in fact cannot commit their crime without engaging in psychologically preparing a victim to become abused. Simply because there is already a prevalence of that form of coaching happening against youth, for example, within the fashion industry, and in American style pop youth culture, we all ought to already know that it is time for our stories to begin to be making a pattern of psychologically preparing all our young people to expose and condemn those who engage in any abuse and violation of any person’s body; but to do that we all will need to learn to inhabit a condition of holding good within stories that tell openly of a greater fear.
Essentially one of the worst aspects of child rape, is that the process of acculturation of the child’s belief structure is caused to deviate from the normal direction of healthy development. That healthy development is the development of the capacity to trust our own conscience. It is also the development of ideas about what is right and what is wrong, but underlying that is a harm which has been committed to the child’s correct understanding of their own feelings, and therefore the development of a healthy conscience. All ritual abuse commits the same exact crime, and the only way to prevent it, is by making our culture equally strong in the way we impose the need to be obedient to good conscience.
Every person whom has experienced any disruption of the acculturation process is more vulnerable than other persons are to being ritually abused. That includes all those whom are abused in childhood, but more than that, it also includes all those whom have experienced any form of ethnic cleansing, or other extremist politics which have prevented their human rights being acknowledged. Significantly it includes also every child whom has been removed from a parent without good cause. The effects of such things are also intergenerational in sustaining vulnerability, unless there is a very well resourced full emotional recovery enabled immediately after the victim is physically safe from further actual abusive behaviour. Why it is noticeable that there is a disproportionately high quantity of Aboriginal persons whom are inflicted with the results of ritual abuse, is quite simply because of the vulnerability which has been caused by the whole picture of the attempt to culturally assimilate Aborigines, of which the stolen generations is only one part, but is also the most devastating part.
One of the very obvious aspects of the abuse of Aboriginal Australia, is that when individuals and communities were being prevented from fully adhering to indigenous culture, they were also not being given any meaningful lessons in adhering to the invaders culture. That is, except from within the Christian Bible. Fortunately the Bible sustains lessons about culture and meaning with can become accessible to any well minded person whom has access to the Bible, even when the only formally ordained clergy available were abusive, and this is why the Christian religion survives, along with Judaism and Islam, because the quality of the texts pierces through the worth of who is reading. There is clear evidence of this fact in the predominant place which Christian symbolism has taken in status within Aboriginal Art. The clear message in this is that religion can sustain society when full adherence to culture is being prevented, which is what is happening to every victim of ritual abuse. However, in respect of what was not provided to Aboriginal Australians, a major aspect of that was in respect of English language. Many more Aborigines were adept at a ‘highbrow’ forms of indigenous speech, than there are Aborigines today whom are adept in a high brow form of English. Significantly also, it is that when a community has been prevented from sustaining their own language, and then is refused full access to an invading language, the mind’s natural inclination to seek out verbal expression, is extremely vulnerable to the abuse of language through ritual abuse. This is evident often in Aboriginal refusals to say many words at all.
For example, I have met many Aboriginal persons, to whom use of the dictionary so as to advocate for specific word meanings, has never been taught, or if taught at school, then never adopted because the dictionary was never shown to them as a tool of substantial weight in respect of English usage. What is happening in respect of the ritual abuse of the indigenous community, has a strong focus on causing that there is false symbolism being portrayed around word use. Because of that fact there is a large proportion of the indigenous population whom have never been exposed to English language culture as a culture which sustains any real meaning. This fact must be accommodated by all Australians within the process of committing to really believing in the need to be sorry about stolen generations. Not a sorry which enables the apologiser to be blamed, but a sorry in which a commitment is made to properly enable the Aboriginal community improved access to the means of the invading culture and also the means to reinforce the aspects of indigenous culture which have not been harmed.
The work which I have commenced with the few men whom have given me data about the ritual abuse in prisons, in which they were enabled to inform me because I was able to help them some way into recovery, has focussed upon the abuse of language. Many persons, both indigenous and non-indigenous, whom have experienced ritual abuse here in Australia, both in prison and out of prison, have found that their mind becomes habitual in forming very limited associations with word meanings. That is, their minds have become reductive in respect of language, with each meaning being caused to divide into a variety of possibilities which are presented as contradictory. It is a very careful process by which the meanings inherent in language can be pieced back together and proven to contain no inherent contradiction. I tend to engage that process through writing poetry, which I began for the combined purpose of aiding my own recovery, and of informing those men whom I had become over exposed to, as to how their own meaning was being misinterpreted by others, and how they were also misinterpreting the meanings of others.
One of the variety of responses to my poetry, has been for men whom were abused, to find themselves experiencing being triggered into remembering very vividly the feelings associated with having been abused. That provides me with evidence that I am on the right track, but it is also evidence that the track my own poetry is on, might be in need of professional supervision so as that the poetry will not reopen old wounds without appropriate support being available. When I write at times, with poetry, I often start with a phrase, or set of phrases, in which I can detect that there are perverted word meanings being read, and that I try to do no more than to amass the full set of potential meanings, and point to the fact of how the real totality of meaning can lay to rest all the fear associated with whether the meaning is one thing or another. The fact that my poetry is evidenced to be having a particular effect, means that, even though the poetry is often not yet well edited etc, that it is certainly identifying accurately the nature of the problem. If anybody would like to assess that for themselves, there are parts of those poems in the internet in a set of connected weblogs which you could find perhaps through http://doyouknowme.wordpress.com
Through my experience with writing poetry and exposing those poems to victims of ritual abuse, I can definitively validate that careful use of language in the advertising industry could work effectively towards combating the effects of ritual abuse. However, given that the response in a minority of men, has been an extreme emotional response, in which anger about the abuse is clearly stimulated, there is every indication that this sort of idea must be navigated with extreme caution. We ought also consider the effect of advertising language upon perpetrators, and yet always place the need for children to be enabled to develop accurately meaningful word associations, in front of the risk of aggravating any perpetrator. After all, if we fear aggravating perpetrators to the extent that we fail to protect children, then we are still being a victim to perpetrators threats by pandering to those threats.
However language on its own, while it might, at times, have been the key to the abuse, and therefore is the key to recovery, is certainly not the only component of the abuse. As it is said that a picture paints a thousand words, so is the power of the advertising industry to have a positive effect on the whole community in prevention of the larger social effects of the ritual abuse of a minority. Perhaps we might all become less vulnerable quite readily, as soon as the advertising industry is able to be more regulative of the imagery it exposes us to, and use of symbols in that imagery. Yet even the whole advertising industry is not enough, without also many of us committing to modifying our behaviour, and denying any of the social cues which are potentially coercive for other persons.
What seems to be foremost in combating vulnerability to ritual abuse, is in fact just simply having a healthy lifestyle. That means, getting enough of the right sort of exercise, eating well but not a lot, eating enough fresh food, and not relying upon health food supplements or being a gym junkie, etc. That is, avoiding all very addictive behaviour. Most of us cannot fully escape immediately from having at least one addictive behaviour, yet we can accord that whatever we habitually continue in our behaviour, is something which has never been exposed to potential for abuse through ritual. We can make habits out of the parts of our life in which we have never been either victim or perpetrator of abuse.
One aspect of the potential for any person to recover from ritualised abuse, is their family’s attitude to the abuse, and also whether or not their family sustained conditions in which a victim/survivor had first been made vulnerable to abuse through rituals. That is, if a person’s family of origin always sustained an internal consistency and coherence in every of its ritualised behaviour, then that person is normally far more likely to be able to notice what is wrong with criminal abuse of rituals, and usually before too late. Families who are not internally contradictory, have every right to be free from any further allegations against the social unit of the family, which is often what becomes blamed in other professional or social contexts that aknowledge abusive histories. In recovery, a victim/survivor of ritual abuse, more so than with other forms of abuse, and similarly to the needs of those who suffered extreme abuse in childhood, needs to be able to avoid every and any situation in which any ritual is performed in which there is not a fully consistent and coherent internal reasoning pattern to believe in, as the internal mental advocate for participation in the ritual, and in which the abuse is proven to be criminal as an integral aspect of the reasoning behind the ritual. That is to say, every aspect of the life of the survivor, needs to be holding sanity to be of the utmost importance, but that sanity is defined by the capacity of the individual to sustain internal consistency between reasoning and experience. Most people whom survive ritualised abuse, are extraordinarily distrustful of every social ritual thereafter, and many former prison inmates exhibit that social phenomenon. It makes it hard to hold down a job when you cannot trust the normal social rituals of getting to know your boss. Yet we all need our habits, and so need also we need to be able to relate socially to one another within ritualised forms. Therefore the rituals which have reason become massively important. In my own recovery the rituals of religion have taken on a high level of importance, in which I have depended heavily upon my positive experience of Christianity when very young, yet I am also extremely sensitive to every possibility of any abuse to those rituals, and will back off from my participation in religious rituals at the slightest trace of another participant not wholly believing in the real worth to the ritual. For example, I cannot stomach attending religious rituals if it seems that any other person in attendance is only there so as to find the social status within which to get money. Yet at the same time I crave any participation in any ritual in which I have previously had a positive experience.
So positive experiences of ritual, are not what make us vulnerable to ritualised abuse, but in fact are what enables us to recover from ritual abuse. This is why ritual abuse is so different from other abuse. With the specific difficulty of sexual abuse, in that the victim might have experienced some pleasure at some point in the events of being abused, that person might navigate through a process of desiring but also avoiding sexual conduct, for a period of time in which to find the key to recovery. Yet ritual is a basic human need above any sexual intimacy, and quite simply put, rituals cannot be avoided without avoiding all of human society.
I would commend ,for any professional whom encounters a person whom needs therapy for recovery from ritual abuse, that they first try to keep every therapeutic context fully devoid from ritualisation, (eg, change the seating arrangement and timing of offering a hot drink and each appointment), and that second the therapist finds one ritual in which the survivor has no fear of engaging through in the therapists company. Perhaps the only safe rituals left to the survivor are those which normally only happen when alone, such as bathing, or cleaning the teeth. Perhaps it may help for the therapist and patient to be both wearing a dressing gown over the top of day time clothing, and drinking a hot chocolate, or engaging in a similar behaviour which is normally only associated with feeling very safe. However, perhaps patients will be very cautious about showing any details of their lives in which abuse has not yet happened, if there has never been another person in their life who had not abused them. Therapists can also assist the survivors of ritual abuse to define their own rituals which no other person need participate in. Rituals of acknowledging the positive aspects of their own life, and in which their own archetypal personality and character traits can be complimented and observed, then repeated. To the same extent that sport is always ritualised, we can use rituals like playing sport as the means to recover.
Cooking is another such very obvious ritual, and it is obvious also with respect to how the art of cookery has been abused in some persons. Every person whom I have met whom worked as a cook in a prison suffers from some kind of an eating disorder, for example. They have been ritually abused into making very negative mental associations with food and with certain recipe ingredients, for example, correlations between human bodily excretions and the ingredients of lemon meringue pie, (that is without even mentioning yet the fact that no prison inmate escapes drug addiction because of the amphetamines being placed into their food, so as to cause a need to use another drug, which is available for sale, only to be able to sleep at night).
The overall discourse about ritualised abuse needs to accommodate two very significant facts. One that recovery from ritual abuse is a very resource intensive process. Two that the failure to engage in that process is more socially detrimental than has yet been accounted for, and to the extent that such expense as is necessary, is often warranted. The fact that there are murderers locked up in the prisons, who are so psychologically scared that their only desire is to continue to murder, should be informing the whole society of the nature of the problem, but normally the existence of those few very feared individuals, is not identified. I know because of a man, who previously worked teaching literacy in prisons, and who was asked by prison security to communicate with one such man, because nobody else could obtain even simple acknowledgement from him.
Other factors which need to be considered are, for example, what forms has ritual abuse taken in various parts of the Australian community. For example, within urban indigenous communities there is a set of unusually obsessive behaviour prevalent in respect of watching television. That pattern is only made explicable by learning about how it is that men whom are put in prison can gain access to a television. That is, there is no access to a television inside an inmate’s cell, for any price, short of being entrapped into engaging in the ritualised abuse of another inmate. Considering that fact, surely there is some social obligation on the part of the media, to work at combating the effects of ritualised abuse.
In fact, while it is true that the negative impacts of ritualised abuse have not yet been socially accounted for, neither has it been accounted how far positive an influence the television media might have if committed to work for it. For example, what might become possible if only it happened that once a day each television station played one advertisement in an advertising campaign, in which it is asserted that nobody gains any positive social valuation through disabling another person being socially valued. Knowing that our individual and social worth is not dependent upon another individual or group having less social worth, is the one idea that could make every difference to any social outcome from the abuse of ritual.
When we can work to prove ourselves by trying to be, even nearly, as good as those who we hold above us in worth, then we are notably of a higher social value and social standing, than if we were to engage in proving our worth by becoming obsessed with proving that we are better than those of lesser worth, which is, after all, always the easier thing to assert. It is like approaching the speed of light to always be aspiring rather than always blaming, we may never arrive at the goal, but we will always be learning new facts about what changes in the approach. The social authority and responsibility which this idea asserts, cannot be underestimated in its value to the advertising industry. Advertisers might assert that they do not want to risk making less sales by not showing how one person might manifest as better than another, but the item being sold demonstrates its real worth by not needing to use the selling strategy of deriding anybody who fails to buy the product being advertised. Maybe our society is not too far away from advertising which says: you might be good enough not to feel you want this commodity, but not all of us are that good. One thing I have noticed about how a person falls victim to ritualised abuse, is that it tends to occur in relation to attempts to engage in selling rather than attempts to engage in buying. Maybe that is the most frightening aspect of how rituals guide our community. The advertising industry has to be held accountable for using basic family rituals to sell our children commodities which are not necessary in real life; and behind the advertisers, is of course, the economic system that relies upon advertising for stability.
Another thing which we can bear with remembering in respect of safeguarding the future from abuse through ritual, is that the perpetrators of ritualised abuse are not persons whom lack social credibility. However they all sustain something odd about the way in which they socially interact. I will give the examples here of what was odd about the three men whom abused me within use of rituals, but which I first failed to pick up on well enough, and then later realised are factors which need to be more strongly accepted into general social conditioning about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. For example the first individual was being propped up into the position of a musician by those whose company he kept, and yet there were only a few tunes which he could play well enough to be able to assume that social position. He also had a reputation for having been quite brutally abused in prison as a juvenile, and it is not normal in our society for musicians to be persons whom have been violated. We normally tend to socially regard the work of musicians and artists as work which ought to be free from inadvertent suggestion of abuse. However, we are also being conditioned to accept that a person has the right to prove themself in recover y from abuse, yet we ought to know that a musician needs more than just a few tunes in which they are adept.
In the next instance in which I was vulnerable to a perpetrator of ritual abuse, what made me vulnerable was that the perpetrator initially approached me within an assumption of the prior standing of a friendly relationship between us, as though we had already met. He engaged myself doubt in how adept my own memory is. Subsequently that form of approach has been used against me often, by a variety of persons whom asserted a variety of situations in which we might have before met, and in each one subsequent I have not been vulnerable to being tricked. What eventually happening in the social transactions of the situation in which I was abused, is that the perpetrator informed me that he had been experiencing dreams in which I was a feature over a period of some years previously, and through use of cocaine. Whether I can believe or not that he was telling the truth, the reality is that he also showed a few other signs of not being fully able to discern himself if an event had really occurred or was only a part of the dreams or nightmares associated with a former addiction. Yet he had attempted to portray myself as though it was me whom had a delusion in which dreams are confused with reality.
In the situation just described, the individual who approached me assuming prior friendship, could best correct his own mental health by acknowledging that he is not always accurately discerning what is delusion, (or only possible to seem real in a dream, and never able to be realised in fact), from what is reality. In the first situation, the perpetrator could be best off himself if the social group whom sustain him stop expecting him to provide leadership only because he once sustained some fame for having told about the abuse in prisons. The fact that he was presented to me as a musician was an aspect of how he had been propped up socially as a leader. In the third situation however, what was the clue which I missed initially, or the social anomaly by which the perpetrator is exposing himself to those well educated in respect of how to detect a perpetrator, was far more obscure than in the first two situations. He was a convicted criminal whom had served two long prison sentences for major offences, and whom could confess what the crime had been he was convicted for, and that he was only caught with five thousand dollars out of the fifty five he had robbed with a gun in his hand. In telling me this, he informed me that he had access to guns, and that he had been in prison for fifteen years, and he was remarkably honest in fact. However, he failed to tell me that the fifteen years were in two distinct prison sentences, and that the second sentence was for rape. He had a strange saying which he favours, which was that crime never pays until you’ve done time, but which he became suddenly very nervous about having told me since I became suspicious at that point. That is normally how he relates to other persons whom engage in criminal activity, and he has a different way in which he normally relates to persons whom are never associated with crime, such as his employers. He rather prefers to tell such persons that the term in prison suited him in that he repented and is no longer tempted to engage in criminal activity. In fact he has been employed often by a local community service, for the Catholic Church, in work counselling prison inmates. I usually refer to him as my local bank robber, but also never acknowledge in public who he is and that I know him, since he asked me not to. The point is, that he might not ever recovery from how he was abused in prison, and also earlier, until he can be exposed to law abiding persons as still oriented into criminal means, and exposed also to criminals in that he is telling the welfare services, who help former prison inmates, that there was any benefit to him from having been in prison. If the time in prison did suit him, it could only be because he decided to make himself suitable to a life of crime.
What is significant about these three anomalies, is that they are not eccentric in any obvious way. They are only things which seem a bit odd on the surface. A musician who is well respected by only knows a few songs, a person whom can only approach having a conversation by assuming prior friendship, and a criminal who seems just too honest. Underneath that surface of slight discrepancy to normality, there is a far bigger social discrepancy. These are not persons whom are socially able to be taken as simply eccentric, because if they expose their eccentricity it becomes very obviously of criminal inclination. Eccentricity might only be a viable cover for criminality if it is also covered with extreme wealth. We are perhaps fortunate in fact, that Australian society is relatively accepting of a certain degree of eccentric behaviour in public. The odd character out, who at times plays a clown, or who sometimes just says something a bit bizarre, is a respected phenomenon within our cultural regulation. Normally because that odd thing that was said, turns out to be a fact in which social power can be obtained, and which therefore defines social status to know. Perhaps why Australians are so accepting of the eccentric in social life, (a fact I did not notice until I travelled overseas), is because within indigenous culture the leadership might nominate for themselves any specific social status on any given day, and we are not normally all informed of exactly who the most senior leaders are. If you think about it, Queen Elizabeth the second of Great Britain and her colonies, might not be able to seem at all lacking in eccentricity if she just turned up in any of our familiar social settings. This is because there is a form of eccentricity which is defined by the person having a different set of priorities in their obligations, and in which there is just not the brain space available to pay attention to the sorts of details which most persons more often regulate their mental patterns through. However, that form of eccentricity, which is fully socially acceptable because it is not criminal, can not become a cover for perpetrators of abuse, since it exposes the eccentric person quite markedly.
In respect of the abuse of language, what is overt about that, is that language is itself its own tool for combating that abuse, and therefore, abuse which engages in use of language, is rather easier to engage in debriefing, and also therefore to recover from. The debriefing process is not usually obvious though, since the person whom is abused through language meanings, will normally only seem able to say a few things which seem to refute the need to say any more, even if they actively want to debrief the situation further. For example, a child who had been assaulted, might be only able to say that they have a fear about having been bad, but in which a good mother could recognise that their child was actually not in the wrong in the situation, and so have a real concern about whom informed the child that they were bad. Thereafter, in the process of recovery, the same child might also want to inform other persons in situations of social authority, because children have a need to perceive natural justice, and want to assert that the bad guy needs to receive their retribution. However in making an effort to disclose, if the only language the child sustains about the situation is that it was their own naughtiness which caused the event of being abused, then once those with the authority to enable that a perpetrator receives retribution, who we usually take to be the police, the child is then unable to speak up about what has happened to them without either incriminating themself unnecessarily, or having been coached by their mother and /or father how to disclose, but which then makes their evidence unviable in a law court. Normally law courts are unlikely to accept evidence which is not being expressed in language, and that is why perpetrators tend to focus their abuse into verbal expression. However words only represent one of the seven deadly sins, and that is sloth, while abuse can be conducted against pride, hate, envy, vanity, and is always also engaging of greed if conducted by ritual. Each of the phenomenon known as a sin, apart from lust with can be defined only as failing to account for other such phenomenon, when being properly accounted for, can also represent forms of human communication and even of communication about the holy and the divine which is without sin. Crime has the hall mark of never differentiating between the pride that is a sin and the pride that is a normal factor of being able to relate with the world.
I want to provide here just one example of the sorts of poems which have been useful for most of the men whom I have met who have been abused in prison. It is not one of the best of such, but only included here because it is the one most recently composed and waiting for me to transpose it out of my diary and into the computer. What it relates to is the false idea that a person whom is famous is therefore also adept in their own self knowledge. That is one of the fallacies which criminals promote. That is, if you have heard of a man’s reputation in prison, the perhaps he is more self observant, and thus also more aware of his own errors, and so able to evaluate the errors of others more accurately. It is assumed that his own self knowledge might be why he is famous, and yet, by assuming that other men tend to let him judge them, and that tends to be what manifested his fame in the first place. I noticed a specific oddity about the meaning of the phrase “show business” among those whom are effected by ritual abuse, and that is how this poem came to be:
Pose
Is show business
The busy-ness
Of knowing what we show
Or only knowing
That busily we are showing
Something or other well known
Whatever it be that was grown
By some seed well sown
Of what busi-ness
Might we need to show
So as to contrive of
What manifests the show
As though known
Let no seed un-shown
No deed unknown
No real face
Of humanity in Grace
Unposed
Here is another example which came from detecting an abusive use of the word rigmarole. It relates less to the criminal world but more overtly to the way in which criminality is covered over.
The Rigmarole of a Stoll to Control
The rigmarole
Of finding the lady’s Stoll
Was beyond her husband’s control
And so he bowled
Her over with his abuse list
Of each and every hidden fist
Behind his
Own rigmarole
Of covert threats upon her to control
IN which he had bribed her
With the purchase of a Stoll
Is it any wonder
Its loss was beyond her control
Before I finish this discussion paper, it would be remiss of me to fail to mention what sorts of stories can be used in Aboriginal culture to engage in recovery from ritualised abuse. They will be any story in which invertebrate creatures exist most particularly, but especially including crabs, spiders, Ants, and witchetty grubs. The ideas by which criminals fail to remember to fear death, and rather pursue a fallacy that they can force more death upon other persons to reduce their own suffering after death, is best embodied through dreams in which imagery of ants manifests. Alike to associating the false accusations which accompany such delusions, with ant bites. Witchetty grubs are particularly useful if there has been any abuse to language. Spiders are useful when the sequencing of stories has been disrupted, and crabs are used in cases of false allegations of child abuse, as well as to rid the offenders of any contemplation of re-offending. In fact, I will commend that playing with snails is excellent therapy for those whom have already identified that abuse has occurred, but were caught in a trap of delaying reporting the abuse only because their abusers also caught them up in a conspiracy to profit from having been abused by making further accusations against other perpetrators, real or imagined. Clearly if the perpetrators of ritualised abuse, and/or child abuse, are engaging in effecting that the survivors could develop delusions about there being more perpetrators then there really are, the situation might only be able to worsen. While if we are always extremely careful about validating suspicions with empirical evidence, we can thereby best enable full recovery, and a fully diminishing incidence of abuse. So rather than sustain a delusion about more perpetrators existing than is real, we all could sustain illusions about every perpetrator manifesting within our minds in the form of invertebrate creature. That is that aim of the Aboriginal cultural patterns in which adults over expose themselves to the abuse so as to detect what it is. By detecting what the abuse is, and what the delusions of the abusers are, we can also detect what natural species can be correlated with the abuse by way of effecting an internal mental exorcism of the fear of further abuse. Eventually, by making a habit of always associating specific mental patterns with specific flora and the fauna, it manifests that images of certain flora and fauna manifest before the associated mental pattern of concerns about criminality. So if a person whom is in recovery from having been given the wrong language to express sexual conduct with, as though there is no distinction between love making and rape, learns to always correlate the words which have been abused with a witchetty grub, then eventually the image of a witchetty grub comes to mind immediately as a warning signal when we are in the presence of anybody whom propagates the wrong sort of word associations in an accusatory manner.
All associations with the natural world can be used like this, for example, petting a dog aids us to detect if our own loyalties are being misplaced or abused. Horse riding enables us to detect how we are susceptible to being betrayed. And as for cats, well, since I am a snake, maybe the best I can say is that we ought to be mindful of what our mind correlates with when a black cat crosses our path.
How we can avoid vulnerability to ritualised abuse, is predominantly by being respectful of those rituals of childhood by which we learn to safeguard our basic human rights. In general the protection of the concept of ritual is essential. If anybody can prove that they have no need for habits, then let that person be whom proves that they neither need to depend upon rituals. Yet criminals attempt to infiltrate rituals simple because we are dependent upon rituals. Therefore we need to sustain a transparency about all of our ritualised behaviours. Bedtime rituals can be made into story books which give subtle details of how to disclose abuse safely for the children whose bed time rituals have been abusively diverted from what a bed time ritual is for. We need also remind ourselves what bedtime rituals, and every other ritual, really is for. Bedtime rituals are not just to enable that parents get some child free time of an evening. Bedtime rituals are for enabling that children will be alert in the morning and able to cope with all the routines of coping with schooling and parents who are in the work force. Just as I have had to consistently impress upon myself what rituals involved with the upkeep of Bora rings are for, and rituals surrounding the availability of the commodity of fire within traditional Aboriginal settings, any ritual in which any abuse has taken place, needs to be culturally reassessed and re-evaluated. So the most significant step in the recovery process is the discovery of why any ritual is effective. For example, why is it that controlled crying techniques can put children to sleep, and then also, why is it that many children prefer being read to sleep by their mother. Why is it that a Bora ring can be maintained to have an effect upon the mind of people who do not even believe that it is there? Broadening the range of people who have access to the knowledge of what underpins any ritual, is a part of effecting protection of the vulnerable from ritualised abuse. It is the same social justice value as enabling that advisory committees have space for people whom represent those consumers who live in relative poverty by comparison to publishers, broadcasters, and shareholders.
Obviously a significant consideration in respect of how criminals survive, is what police are able to manifest to prevent crime, and why police might not have been able to prevent crime. However that is police business rather than ours. Yet what occurs in criminal contexts is that there is a trade in information about police corruption. Criminals are using even very minor evidence of police corruption and corruptibility, in order to infiltrate police information sources, and then give misleading evidence in which they are themselves unlikely to be caught. This is particularly true of ritual abuse contexts because one of the behaviours which is inculcated through ritual abuse by the criminals who conduct it, is that those whom agree to engage in criminal behaviour are enabled in their interactions with police, to seem to be law abiding, whilst those whom are opposing criminality, are then socially disabled in all their interactions with police and the legal profession. What this indicates is that there needs to be some level of civilian policing of the police, since that monitoring of the police, needs to be done by persons whom have a different status and who use different models of social interactions with criminals and victims of crime.
Perhaps what I am advocating in this discussion paper, is that anybody who is available to, might engage in a more assiduous and thorough dialogue about how we might previously have been duped by organised crime. That sort of discourse necessarily must engage in dialogue about what words mean, since varying degrees of ritual abuse are prevalent among organised crime, and that abuse also frequently engages in covering itself by abuse of word meanings. For example, how do we relate to the meanings inherent in the words “community”, or “family”, and “society”, and then how are we relating to those words when we place them in a phrase with the word “justice”. Are we a group of folk or a mob of humanity? Do we believe in social justice as possible without families being an embodiment of a just social construct as well as a naturally forming social pattern. Is community justice being applied to every member of every community equally, and what regulates the definition of communities if it is not the family? Whose society do we keep and why? That being the essential question in which we safeguard ourselves from any sort of abuse. How just is the society we inhabit when we ourselves might be able to guarantee that all our own friends and relations are law abiding, but we also have tend to believe in the labelling of certain other social statuses and group cohesion patterns as either criminal or law abiding, but without knowing why certain social patterns, or dress codes, have been correlated with either justice or crime. I believe that the current fashion for adopting piercings and tattoos, that has crept up into even the best and most law abiding families, is happening precisely because society at large is recognising that we have forgotten why tattoos and piercings ever were originally correlated with crime. When I was young my father absolutely refused permission for me to pierce my ears. Eventually when I pierced them it was with one hole at the top, and then some years later, after accepting liking having a nose shaped like a blackfellas, I had my nose pierced also, but within reference to Indian tradition more so than the modern fashion. Eventually I learned more about the relationship between acupuncture and piercing, and that the reason pirate had big hoop earrings is because there is an acupuncture point in the ear lobe which aids farsightedness. The same can not be said for piercings of the cartilage in the pinna of the ear, and the piercing higher in my ear no longer exists.
The clue is about how to navigate the process of being exposed to crime without crime causing us to fail to adhere to our social and personal needs to be law abiding. Realistically nobody can sustain belief any more that they can live their life without being exposed to crime, or raise their children without needing to forewarn children about how to detect criminal intention against them. We all know that we can’t afford not to lock our doors any more, and while that is a behaviour which I have only made habit myself during very recent years, subsequent to being abused, perhaps it is not the most overt behaviour we exhibit which is indicative to crime. Perhaps what is more indicative of the fact that our society has too strong an element of organised crime, is that there are situations in which children observe their mother’s putting on make up and masquerading as no better than common prostitutes, only so as to sustain certain social status in particular situations depending upon whom needs to be spoken with. So in this perhaps what I am saying is that our society has been sustaining certain manifestations of abuse to ritual within positions of authority, such as the churches, and that has been what is fully enabling that an abuse of ritual can be happening among persons whom have the very least social status, such as those in prisons.
@}>--%--------
Roses are red
Violets are blue
This one’s thorny percent
Because you knew
Not to
Yet sent
For I your love had perused
But thus disabused
I had originally finished the first draft at this point. However immediately thereafter, ABC television showed a late night programme about multiple personality disorder, and I wrote further in a post script, a part of which I will include here in the end of this conclusion. Subsequently I have also learned that there is now a spectrum of mental health conditions, grouped together because of the episodes in these illnesses, all being defined as “dissociative” rather than ‘psychotic’. A dissociative episode is alike to a psychosis that was imposed by abuse rather than by a congenital or acquired physiological condition. So reminders of being abused, are what initialize a pattern of psychosis, or mania, rather than the underlying physiological processes that enable the body’s homeostasis.
Recently Multiple Personality Disorder, is being defined as Dissociation Identity Disorder. This fits with my analysis of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder type reaction being responsible for the mental health crisis.
How a person who believes in an Aboriginal culture, may experience recovery, is in acknowledging that the body might be feeling the presence within it of another person, whose intention is to impose upon us, law breaking, or greedy, behaviour; but that we ourselves do not need to engage in that behaviour, and that if we engage in a more healthy behaviour, we can actualise instead, that we impose more health behaviour upon whom had in the past abused us, and who abused them, and whoever their girlfriends are, etc. So long as we are not resentful about who we might be able to help by behaving well ourselves, we can cause that the abusive social networks we might have had contact with, (and whom perhaps we have a feeling of the presence of within us), are influenced by us, through our internal insistence that we need not behave as they may have wanted us to. Our well minded attitudes towards our own self, can even cause an improvement in the behaviour of those who wanted to abuse us, in which they are fully less likely to be so severely abusive of the next person who falls victim to the pattern they became stuck with because of other people who abused them. If we expect that who abused us will be held accountable, then they also will expect that who abused them will be held accountable. This is the pattern of recovery.
Tonight there was a programme on the ABC about a 35 year old female in England, whose childhood friend was making a documentary about her having a multiple personality disorder, within which she could express a rare self insight into the disease, and its self preservation qualities.
The following comments are from my own direct reflections upon that story.
The television programme depicted the situation of conflicting evidence held between the professions of psychiatry and psychology, in respect of whether the reports of ritualised abuse among persons with a multiple personality disorder, are in fact real.
The fact of the matter to my witness, is that certain form of combination of: the self in witness of the world, in which the phenomenon of a “Synagogue of Satan” can be recognised as an allegorical representation of many of the ill forms of human relationship; the self in which we have been forced to regulate, and therefore sustain memory even if not recall memory, any real abuse; and that aspect of our self which seeks always to find balance between God and nature and the environment of human construction which is less natural that it ought to be, and in which our mental processes are consistently motivated by a need to sustain recovery from any abuse; can manifest as a combination of character traits in which a multiple personality disorder becomes the most expedite method of socially stabilising ourselves into a pattern in which abuse can be recovered from.
I have implied a potentially controversial thing here, that the abuse in which a memory is sustained of Satanic ritual, is an allegoric reference and need not mean that there were actual rituals of worshipping Satan being actively expressed in the environment. If the person being abused, had, for example, entered into a trance state so as to accommodate the pain of what was being inflicted upon their body, and in that trance state of mind, of self hypnosis, they were not fully conscious, then the memory of the bodily experience, which is held in the cells of the body if not the recall, can only be retrieved through an allegorical representation of the experience. For example, the girl in the film on television had a self abusive personality form, in which she sustains no recall memory, yet also in the expressions of which, she remembers having become pregnant, then being forced into a termination and also forced to eat the aborted fetus. More likely that having been forced to sit through a Satanic ritual in which she was physically forced to swallow an aborted fetus, is the scenario in which she could have become pregnant to a rapist, and been forced to endure a socially unrecognised termination, and then been forced by the rapist to swallow self acceptance of her own sins in the acts of conception and then termination.
Remember what I have earlier written about how criminals engage in belief in mental constructs of trade in information of one another’s sinning, as though to thereby excuse their own sinning. Well, that process of regulating the mental acknowledgement of sin, is what defines the synagogue of Satan. I can even go so far as to say that to the minds of the criminals whom are so involved, the character of Satan manifests as a figure to worship because they suppose that he somehow was enabled to “get away with” any crime equal to their own and worse. Most child rapists sustain a belief that they can blame him for their own behaviour. Yet also every actual incident in which a child rapist manifests that belief, the “apparition” of Satan, as a being of light and thus pleasure to human bodies, manifests in their minds in condemnation of their behaviour. The child rapist then seeks to transfer the condemnation over to the child, and the child then receives the impressions of Satan himself. Yet within the child’s experience Satan is not condemning, however he is informing the subconscious that to make the world safe from such evils as child rape, the child must also accept the knowledge of death. For this reason it is a healthy human function for the child’s mind to refuse to recall. In part because the malevolence in which Satan is reputed, is not what the child experiences, but rather a benevolence of his manifestation alike to a real father. Satan in that form of the devil as an Angel descended into the underworld, is malevolent to the supposition of crime as effective method. In that same manifestation he is also malevolent in his presupposition of being able to tempt anybody into entering the underworld with him. Yet to a child whose experience is already inclusive of having been forced into behaviourally entering that underworld, his presence is benevolent.
I know that this analysis within religious expression is potentially the most controversial of all I write, but within my own Dreams, a figure who is a creature of light, as Angels are describe in Religious texts, descends into the worst of my fears with me, and can be known in the name Satan if that belief has any countenance, and then re-ascends within my recognition of his nature within the name Iblis, as he is known in the Arabic language, as one of the Jinn who are unseen beings. Yet he re-ascends in these dreams, after having actively engaged in a process of defending me against those whom have been attempting to lie about me, as though selling information about my own death. (In my experience it was a real blessing to witness such Dreams since his presence feels filled with the Grace of God, and yet he also, like a father, never lets me forget how I need fear what others might do with knowledge of my death. The psychological process, here described for those whom have never encountered Satan, or Iblis, in their own minds, and who might only associate his presence with feeling at fault, is that of being lead through a sequence of events both past and future, in which we are informed that if only we can prevent ourselves from one act, then we will prove to be not ourselves at fault. I had to stop myself from picking my nose, of all things, perhaps I would never have been in the predicament I am now in. In this I am informed by Satan/Iblis manifesting in my own mind, of being the only believer in God whom is also in his synagogue, and so I do not expect that this particular set of dreams is normally possible for other people. Yet it is informative for those who work towards their own recovery and the recovery of others. I do not believe in any form of Satan worship, but expect that to many people, whom fully associated the stories of ritualised abuse, with satanic rituals, it is worth knowing that the dreams in which Satan manifests, always provide protection for any child whose belief in God is real. I expect to learn that those whom manifest multiple personality disorder normally are those whom refused to enact the behavioural action which might have proven their self to be whom was in the wrong. My own presence of mind within these dreams is informed by Satan/Iblis, that why I have such unusual manifesting dreams, is because of how my family have handled this situation, in which I can believe it is neither truly their own fault, and yet also have to accept that my parents have their own need to be held responsible. So see here how very terrible my own internal psychology is, in that I manifest having sold my parents to Satan. That is not usually the story of a person within their parents responsibility, who believes in God, but it is a terrible self acknowledgement in which I am compelled in my own belief in Allah, to write my evidence out for those whom can use it to enable their work with other victims and survivors of many forms of abuse in which ritualised behaviours have been engaged. That is, cultural abuse.) Perhaps what might eventually manifest is that most ritualised abuse can be redefined as quasi-religious cultural abuse. (Even if I still cannot find it in myself to condemn fallen Angels; which seems to have been the cause of why I have navigated my own recovery through the religion of Islam, in which I am certainly enabled to believe readily in a naturally occurring retributive justice by which my childhood can be vindicated, and the perpetrators of abuse can be worthily condemned. The Angel of Death can adequately sort it all out, even if only through his assistance to myself in my own regulation of my own death process when that eventually occurs. This psychology is the essence of the distinction between Christo-Judaic belief and Islam. It is only a redistribution of allocating whose fault was causal to the problems we all experience. When a person has greater inclination to love Angels than to love men, the sanity is more fully fluid with Islam, however when a person’s individual sanity wants only to love humanity as a more God like expression, and therefore needs to attribute the wrong behaviour in men to another cause, then Angels are only too obliging by manifesting in Devil form. This is not because the Angel Iblis is inherently a wrongful being, but because of his recognition of the human need to sustain real faith in the God like nature of humanity, and also because all human beings have needed the evidence that even an Arch Angel was entrapped by the wrong happening at Earth, of the deeds of the beasts represented in Biblical prophesies.) I do not expect my own religious interpretation is able to furnish other people’s minds with their own sanity, because the nature of the religious texts is that they provide a very internalised and individualised, perception of the real world.
All that told, I am yet to fully concentrate my attention, within this facet of my personality, into the issue at hand, about real recovery from the multiple personality form of mental ill health. Fortunately I never fell into it too badly, or without memory of what was being conducted. My own dissociative episodes are not the sort where there is no memory of reality being engaged simultaneously, and so I experienced the ‘delusions’ or ‘hallucinations’, without ever falling into believing that they were the real story.
I can categorically say here that the fear which is most destabilising of me in my recovery process, is alike to a pathological fear of being discovered to be an indigenous Australian. A fear existing even in the face of self identification as indigenous. In saying this, I will also admonish every non-indigenous Australian to take very seriously the need to remove Terra Nullius from the Australian constitution. I believe that we indigenous Australians can assert, within the totality of my own evidence about how ritualised abuse is enabled by abuse of our indigenous identity, and then has become enabling of child abuse, and also of child rapists imagining to be able to get away with child rape only by blaming indigenous Australians, is that every Australian whom could not want to remove Terra Nullius from the Australian constitution has the equivalent culpability to being complicit with child abuse.
Now I need to say something about the processing of the reintegration of the various personalities of a multiple personality disorder, also called now a dissociative identity disorder. My advantage in these processes, of being “true fella” nungarrayi, is considerable. That advantage is partly biological, yet is also partly a fact of how perpetrators of ritualised abuse tend to be fully unable to conceive of the possibility that a person is sustaining fully conscious and constantly fully conscious, real recall memory. My biological advantage is thus enhanced by the absolute denial of its existence among criminals.
What I can notice is that the process of reintegration of the various personality forms, which are not able to be within full recall memory in all patterns of biological regulation of a person’s story archetypes among other people, is a process of letting that personality which cannot be recalled, dominate temporarily within a supervised process, until its self expression is exhausted to the point of a recognition of death, or through the supervisor engaging in dialogue with that other personality, until each distinct personality recognises that it causes its own death by taking over the body. When an active record is made of that self expression, by writing or filming, for example, then the major personality character, in which the minds recall capacity is regulated, can witness evidence of a need to face the acknowledgment of death. It will be that acknowledgement of death which their physical body was traumatised into needing an awareness of, often too young, and/or within far too abusive a situation, or through too much force of violence and pleasant sensation combined. Often what seems to be causing the dissociative episodes to continue, is just that the person is wanting to avoid facing their fear of their own death. When people have been abused to young, and it was clearly not their own fault, it is very difficult for their mind to accept that their ultimate death is being caused by all their belief in any of the abuse they were subject to. That is where having one’s own comprehension of one’s own culpability in the story, is actively beneficial; and why normally satanic type rituals are easier to expose than any other abusive rituals, and so ultimately are less socially harmful.
To the process of a multiple personality, or dissociative identity, disorder can be attributed many of the same qualities as the onset of dementure and alziemer’s disease. Yet in those diseases there is a social acceptance of a need for the patient to be nursed, within a belief that there is no possibility of recovery, but that having already lived life through social contribution, that level of nursing attention is warranted. I want to state that many persons suffering dissociative identity disorders might prove to be able to become very effective contributors to society, if only they first receive that necessary nursing of their full recovery process.
We Australians need to face this in respect now already of the legislative basis of our Nation State. Within various Government apologies, there is varying degree of commitment to enabling the indigenous population to recovery from what was essentially an abuse to culture in the theft of children from the heart of the acculturation process.
What I have experienced within indigenous communities, is an abuse being perpetrated, against the majority, by that minority involved in criminal activities, through which the peripheral rituals of indigenous culture have been abused. Much of the abuse is sexual, and most often committed by those whom have themselves been forced into the varieties of multiple personality disorder which are prevalent in the prisons. Most of those whom are sustaining a real dissociative identity disorder, are drug and alcohol users, and so their memory failures are being negated by presumptions about why their substance abuse was happening. There is a chicken and an egg story, in which the abuse of the perpetrators and self abuse compete for victory of who was the more culpable personality in the story. When groups like alcoholics anonymous, insist upon working towards recovery from alcoholism first, they may not always have been evaluating the preconditions of how a person had been abused to cause the disease of alcoholism, (or that the person may have giardia bacteria or another biological condition making detoxification more harsh), but they are correct in demanding that a person cease committing self abuse, before the history of being a victim, can cease harming the future.
One of the worst aspects of the ritualised abuse being committed against the indigenous population, is that there has been an abuse perpetrated in respect of our work to reinstate the Kinship way of social regulation, partly through use of English language words to describe kin relations. For example, words like: “sis”; “bub”; “bro”; and even “aunty”; have been threaded with a set of social misapprehensions about the English language culture, that disables the indigenous community from adequately accessing the invading culture within a needs basis. That, of course, depends upon the person hearing those words, having experienced certain forms of physical abuse. Many people hear those words normally without experiencing any false meanings, but for a person who has been abused, those words trigger a specific set of false meanings. There is a simple set of lies about real Kinship regulation that have entered the community’s subconscious through use of those words, and in fact we ought to be able to remedy the matter once the false associations are detected, and then also, the first incident of every false association is detected in each individual’s story. For example, the word “bub” has been forced to associate with subconscious recollection of the mother-in-law and son-in-law avoidance relations, but that association can be changed. Here is another example, the word “sis”, short for the English “sister”, had a level of abusive associations with negative racial relations in some contexts, but through having sourced the origins of the abuse of that word, I am able to now alter the associations, such that it feels embarrassing to use that word wrong, but where we can safely associate it also with the Aboriginal word for women’s breasts, it is then an English word able to be used true. Changing the subconscious associations with the word “bub” is possible through a sequence of language use like this: bubba-grubba>maybe baby>(then baby’s real name here, or a close personal nickname)>then last is a birth certificate name where a certificate identifies that a baby is born. If we bear that sequence in mind as an original source of abuse to language, then we are enabled to use the words baby and bubby without those words causing fear. If that sequence effectively changes you own internal mental associations, then I could tell you perhaps, that the culprit was those undercover policemen who are obsessed with aliens and space travel, and who link themselves with a Chinese immigration to Australian about 150 years previous to 1788, but for that to be proven, you’d have to believe in the whole story of what has happened to me, otherwise the Chinese might all have you for their own sanity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
somewhere within this weblog is an error, but I can't find it today to correct it:
I menion that with blood/birth relations, who you are in Aboriginal Kinship through your mother, determines future marriage possibilities, and through your father determines what food you can eat; but that is only part of the story. Actually normally it is by your mother's brother that you learn food stories, and connected with mitochondrial DNA transmission through the maternal only genetics. However, if your parents marriage is ideal, that should transmit through your father's story, to your external self that faces the world.
Post a Comment