Aug 10, 2023·edited Aug 10, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
It's a sick pyramid of control and I hope people becoming aware about it will make it shrink or disappear. 🙏
Her description of psychopathy is actually the description for narcissism, which comes from wounding like she described here.
"Anneke states that psychopathy comes from the fear that you are unlovable, not the light, not the innocent child. You then seek the substitute for love: release from fear through violence. When you come into the world, she says, you have spirit and that’s reflected by the people who love you. When it’s not reflected back, and no one recognizes your innocence, you think that something’s wrong with you, you’re bad, and don’t see that it’s their limitation."
A psychopath is not this. They basically have no affective empathy, but a lot of cognitive empathy which is the empathy calculated by following rules and expectations. They don't feel fear the same way as described above.
Here's a good video on the issue of empathy in autism vs psychopathy.
Oh that's interesting with the description of narcissism having that psychology. I have wondered whether the connection between childhood vaccines and autism is a feature, not a bug. I'll check out the video.
What's gonna knock your socks off is that there's another category called highly sensitive person and they have both strong cognitive empathy and affective empathy.
I remember reading something about daisies vs. orchids, related to that. But sometimes I have to wonder why Latino kids don't have this. The ones I know are living with multiple relatives in noisy neighborhoods with occasional gunshots. And they don't seem to be overstimulated or jumpy. As Anneke shows, kids are so much more capable and resilient than we expect of them. In her case, than should be expected of anyone.
I'm talking out my arse here, but I would suggest that Latinos are more community oriented than whites, and their communities haven't been (quite) as smashed as the black kids (who seem to be getting the lion's share of autism diag-nonsense). I would suggest that this community leads to the children being more supported. And - perhaps (just perhaps) less jabbed.
I'm glad to see more attention on trauma based mi d control, which I believe, along with narrative warfare, to be the true most dangerous weapons in the world.
We all have a choice to become the monster, fight the monster, or go along to get along (often "out of sight, out of mind").
One thing I discovered in my research on the Nazi cult is that Hitler had a twisted sadomasochostic sex life in which he asked women to kick or otherwise hurt him when he got naked. He may have roped his niece into this. She came to live with him at 16 or 17 and killed herself, broken, around four years later.
That's an excellent phrase, Mathew, 'trauma-based mind control.' There's so much in those four words. And in narrative warfare.
I'm sorry to have missed your RTE last night, I was staining a porch before the next four days of rain. That project was eclipsed by water pouring out of the foundation and into the cellar. Tomorrow the sidewalk is getting dug up by the gas company (free!) so the sewage line can be got to ($$$). Nothing like old houses!
But I had an excellent talk with Gabe ahead of time about trauma and abuse, and the tie-ins to how we're being manipulated.
There's so much blamed on Hitler's particular psychosis but what I want to find out is who bankrolled him. Who pulled his puppet strings? I don't believe he acted alone.
Aug 11, 2023·edited Aug 11, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Who bankrolled him and pulled his strings? In addition to Prescott Bush, probably worth looking at many others on Wall Street, including the Dulles brothers and Sullivan & Cromwell, plus Montagu Norman (Bank of England), Hjalmar Schacht (Reichsbank) and the usual suspects at The Bank of International Settlements. Also worth looking at the time Hitler spent in the UK and the relatives of his who lived there. Some claim that Hitler had close links to the British establishment but I don't know what those alleged links were. Also worth asking who did the deal with NAZIs to end WWII in Europe and to allow Hitler, Bormann, Kammler and other senior NAZIs to fake their own deaths and exfiltrate to Argentina with vast amounts of loot and high tech. In the early 1950s, The Bilderberg Group was created to manage and launder that loot through European and American banks.
Okay but here's my secret suspicion. Where does Rothschild fit in? We know he didn't just let himself be kicked out of Germany and not do anything about it. He's the City of London puppetmaster and we know there's no hesitation about sacrificing your own for the greater good (of yourself.) Where was he and who did he control?
Aug 11, 2023·edited Aug 11, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Isn't The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) (secretly) a Rothschild creature/subsidiary?
"All wars are bankers' wars"? Isn't the business model used to manage planet Earth one of central-banking-driven warfare? The BIS is puppetmaster to the network of national central banks and Rothschild is the planet's CFO? I think he operates through the BIS rather than The City of London, which answers to (or is a subsidiary of) the BIS. Perhaps more discreet that way? The BIS's relationship with Hitler and the NAZIs was certainly close.
There is no doubt Hitler was not the mastermind. He was an abused Austrian boy with an Oedopus complex whose love of mother made him charming to a circle of German elite women who took him in and likely prepared him for a role. The Prussians had already built a schooling system (Frederick the Great) for lobotomizing children, so they knew the art of sculpting gholas.
We are told Hitler was a painter, but he spent time acting. Oddly, his IMDB profile is absent, but his propaganda department was run by the directors of the films he appeared in with small roles. This was likely part of the preparation.
The Hitler Youth were often camped in the U.S. while U.S. corporations (possibly controlled by the British in many cases) and banks (Harriman via Prescott Bush, GHWB's father) bankrolled or otherwise aided the Nazis.
At the end, we see Rockefeller's team directing the Nuremberg trials and helping place key Nazis in major positions of power in the post-WW2 landscape.
I was out last night with a business partner, so I haven't seen last night's Locals video myself, but I'll view it tonight while working on an article or info organization.
I only could stomach a few minutes of the video and when Anneke said that they made you kill so that you lose your innocence, the thought occured to me that that's probably another reason (among the many sick ones) for sending young people off to war...
Anyway, thanks a million times for the work you do.
Thank you Geoff and I'm glad I watched it so you didn't have to. I have a low tolerance for horror and things get stuck in my head that I wish I hadn't put there. That was why I felt that Brecht was goading her into more graphic stories than we needed. Yet Anneke told every story with the detachment of having spent 30 years processing it and bringing meaning out of it. It actually had the opposite effect of a horror story. It made me feel that people could go through the worst possible things and have a spiritual presence at the time that makes it tolerable. She also has a beautiful smile and feels very strongly that we're at a point where things are coming out because they're about to be resolved.
Interesting thought about the tie-in to young people and war.
Speaking of humiliation and trauma, how about Government and the medical cartel perpetrating a pandemic and then enlisting doctors and nurses to murder their patients with Remdesivir and ventilators after sending the patients home with no guidance until they turn blue...and if we talk about it we are called monsters?
Absolutely, William. It's a very sick and diabolical plan. Making doctors and nurses complicit--not knowingly but unable to admit the truth without questioning their own actions--was the same playbook used on Anneke.
Thanks for drawing my attention back to this article and that observation. It goes through so many things, it's such an important part--make the victim complicit with the illusion of choice. Thanks for reading this!
Yeah, and "Trans ideology doesn't have anything to do with sterilizing girls, turning boys into eunuchs and lowering the age of consent. None of that is happening bigot!!!"
They seem pretty balanced in their assessments. I mentioned in another Stack, my kids got introduced to pronoun usage at a summer camp at a Private School. My complaint was met with a Lame policy excuse.
That's a good example, Peter, but I think it fits into Dalrymple's definition of propaganda. What we--kids in particular--are being asked to accept is humiliating, something that so goes against our common sense that we have to twist into pretzels to make it okay. The pronoun use is ridiculous. And it steals our self-respect when we do it. But those who champion it are being manipulated in all kinds of ways, using their love and inclusiveness against them, being told they're not a good person if they don't do this. So yes, I would say it's also a cult.
I recommend her book. Very balanced and thorough. YES, she quotes the "transphobes" (as proclaimed by the Woke), and relies on them as sources. What she presents is very compelling.
For Example: Helen mentions during Olympic or University Swim competitions, the women have to change in the same room, as the previously identified male (now female identifying - but not surgically manipulated), even if they had traumatic experiences, were sex assault survivors, or uncomfortable with it. Same goes for the Bathroom usage.
I'd be quitting the team. I don't want to be worrying about seeing peen when I'm preparing for a sporting match. Really, how can that be good for the team? Even if the peen is a superb teammate?
JC - it's forced abuse and would be considered indecent exposure in any municipality. It is humiliating for those women - but to protest, the women would risk giving up Sponsorships, Wages, or Scholarships in some cases. It is very clever and evil. Perhaps all the women in any given event should go to the final then not Participate (in unison), and do that ad nauseum, while providing NO COMMENT.
"Imagine that someone could give you 100% guarantee that the abuse would end, for everyone, for ever, but only if you—like Anneke—could come with an open heart to understand the most ‘evil’ men, forgive and dare I say love them. Would you do it?"
---------
I think so, but only because I knew it would stop the abuse. Without such a guarantee..........
Haha, that was my next question. At what percentage would it not be worth it? 75%? 50%? 25%? If there was ANY chance it would end the behavior, would it be worth it?
The reward is so high that calculation of pot odds makes me want to say it's worth it even at a very low number, but my human nature wants more of a guarantee!
That's exactly the response I was hoping for, SimCom. From where we sit in the cheap seats, our condemnation can't do anything. The first step in forgiveness is to take away all potential for it to happen, not just for the sake of the victims but also for the perpetrators.
If I imagine that the perpetrators, in the privacy of their beds, are futilely downing prescription drugs to keep the nightmares away, I feel more motivated rather than less. And I feel more hopeful because then, there's something in them that wants the nightmare to end. They're not the Hollywood version of the psychopath but a tortured anguished soul who longs for and fears death in equal measures.
Thank you. forgiveness = when we know that we are of the same flesh and blood and therefore have the same possibility of doing hideous things as the one who kills or rapes or defrauds or demeans others. Trying to say that we would not be like other people will end in violence because we must kill off the niggling truth that the other is NOT different from us.
As an eastern Orthodox Christian, I go to confession and this acknowledgement is the truest gift of confession.
Thanks for your astute comment, FL. I share your belief that we're the same but come to the opposite conclusion--they are born as innocent and perfect as we are. What happens to turn them capable of doing hideous things? That's what my focus is. Your observation that "Trying to say that we would not be like other people will end in violence because we must kill off the niggling truth that the other is NOT different from us" is perceptive.
I just posted a video looking at the theology of this called And the Flesh Was Made Word: https://youtu.be/Hr5AETbonac. I'm working on the Substack version now. Thanks for reading!
Aug 12, 2023·edited Aug 12, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Thank you for sharing your incredible insights and thoughtful questions. 🙏🌹
Some people in the spiritual, healing movement, people who have been abused, not only forgive their abusers and people who have killed and a harmed others, but defend them, attack those who do not chose to "forgive" sadists, rapists, pedos, murderers and mRNA inventors.
I've noticed a tendency in many people to have compassion for people who they understand. Maybe they can imagine themselves committing a specific crime so they forgive those criminals but they are intolerant of other crimes.
Some who feel true peace is in forgiveness, have intolerance for unforgiving people.
I believe your insight ties into this lack of tolerance in some people.
Their triggers are acceptable but yours are not. You should forgive who they forgive and be intolerant of who they do not forgive. You should put up with bad behaviors that minimize some people's suffering... but not forgive people who speak out agaisnt those minimizing suffering. Forgive the abuser but not the person who will not forgive the abuser.
I'm not sure if this makes sense. I guess all I really know is, should and shouldn't are thought terminating, manipulative concepts, used to pressure others to submit. We are all on this path alone, together, sharpening each others swords with wisdom and knowledge. I really appreciate this article which ties in many of the struggles I've been working on inside myself coming to terms.
Heidi, I'm so honored that you subbed my stack. And that's a very short list I made. Thank you! And it tells me that this is a continuing conversation, and I'm grateful for that.
It is a subtle and complicated point, and I don't know if it's one I'm trying to make or trying to puzzle out. Rather than forgiveness as defending the behavior, I'm looking at it as saying, "Whatever someone else has done I would do in their shoes." So I guess that spiritual stance would also apply to however someone else reacts. If I were them, I'd react that way too. I'm not responsible for anyone's experiment other than my own.
For instance, Malone. I don't blame him for being a lying manipulative bioterrorism agent who wants to keep the killing going. It's who he was born to be, it's what his whole career and family history has led him to. My role is to do everything possible to expose him and thwart him from ever having power over us. But I'm not angry with him and I don't think I'm better than him. I was just born to a different role.
I could never imagine myself doing the things that Anneke describes done to her. But when we simply write it off as 'these are bad, evil people,' we stop asking 'why?' We assume behavior has no cause. It was used in 9-11 to say nonsense like, "They hate us because we love freedom." So people never asked, "Why would someone do this?" much less, "Did they actually do it?"
When RFK and Kirsch talk about healing the divide and forgiveness, what they mean is never calling out and condemning the behaviors, never getting to the cause of who did what for this to happen. Never exposing the truth. Obama used the same trick with "We need to move forward not look back." Fuck yes, we need to look back.
I try not to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. How would I know when I'm not in their situation? My only dogma is that I'm no better than anyone else. Because of that, I'm always asking, "Why are they doing that?" I don't think people do things without a reason that makes sense to them, which isn't the same as excusing the behavior. If the objective is to change the behavior, knowing why--from their perspective--is the most important piece of information. It doesn't mean you have to do anything with that. I don't know if that makes sense.
One decision, one turn, one butterfly flapping it's wings, and I could be/could have been the monster.
It is diligence, observance, which prevents me from falling - but - there but for the Grace of God, go I. How easy it would be to slip and fall! This awareness is essential for the ability to trust, and to extend compassion to the least - and the greatest - of us.
It's not forgiveness, more on the order of compassion. The people @Heidi Heil describes are not touching their compassion. It's still in their heads.
I've thought a lot about that phrase, JC. I don't use it anymore. What it conveys is an unfair God who gives out grace to some but not others, who sets the circumstances so that some fall and fail while others succeed. My perspective now is "There go I, reflected in a different mirror." When anyone slips and falls, there go I. But none of it is the real me, not the body "I" call 'I'. Figuring out my own 'reality' is the butterfly wing that changes all of it. IMHO.
Mmmm. I guess it depends on how you define "God," which for me, is not a "person" or "entity" but a direction towards Source, joined to the Light Within. Grace is a vital concept in Yoga & Vedic teachings. It ain't the same as Grace for some and not for others, and it ain't the same as Christian Grace. Grace is available to all, but it must be courted, like a lover. A closer English word to the Vedic one, might be "Gnosis," or "Awakening."
I use the phrase to remind myself of compassion. That could be me (like your mirror). It is arrogant to believe (and I love the Bucky Fuller stuff, wherever that was - I've been reading so much of your stuff, I can't keep track) that *I* am somehow different, special, or immune to evil and committing evil. We all have that potential. That could be me.
It's when you achieve that awareness that you can choose. "Enlightenment" (I'm very careful about using that word) is a process, not a goal.
I think we're in semantic and cultural background territory here.
Yes, I do get that and I knew that was how you meant it, as a means to compassion. It's just one of those semantic habits I'm trying to break, myself, like two ways to skin a cat or killing two birds with one stone. Now I say lighting two flames with one match ;-)
Thanks for all the reading! Bucky was in the Quantum Sex & Dragon Chakras episode. I love his stuff too.
I have such a hard time looking into pedo stuff. I know I owe it to humanity to not look away. As if absorbing the horror can somehow alíviate the cruelty. Witnessing it allows it to resonate in the morphic fields of our shared consciousness and therefore make room for healing.
Thank you for always expanding our perspectives by not only giving information but tying it into the vast tapestry of connections. There’s more to comb through here (and all the posts I’ve missed while traveling!!) but I’m starting to make my way.
Sorry such a long time replying to this but I wanted to say that you don't owe it to anyone to absorb the horror. I don't think that sharing the suffering lessens it. What I liked about Anneke was her lightness and certainty that there was a spiritual presence helping her through this, and that she knew it was bringing about a new world without this darkness in it. Her ability to even love the perpetrators, after she was away from it all where it wasn't a Stockholm Syndrome thing, was astounding to me. So I say to absorb what you can without getting bogged down by it but don't make it a burden. Anneke is proof that there's more at work in the worst of circumstances than we can imagine, so you don't have to fix it or share it.
I truly love that. It goes along with that idea that we must love even those we consider unlovable, because had we been in their shoes, had we their path im life, we would have done the same. I know Eisenstein speaks to that and so does Thich Nhat Hahn. It’s part of the healing. It’s not so much an obligation I feel to witness and absorb, but an understanding that I can act as a filter for the transformation needed. ‘How can I help shift the paradigm?’
I'm pretty sure Charles Eisenstein has written something very much in tune with you about the topic of forgiveness. I don't know if I could find his article now, but I recall he was talking about how people like to believe that they wouldn't do what those other "bad people" did if they were in the same situation, but that's essentially a way of asserting one's moral superiority to the rest of the human race. This really shook me up, and it's helping me to be more understanding of my family members and friends who seemed to have gone insane in the scamdemic. I have to accept the idea that I might have gone insane in the same way if I'd had the same life history as they.
Oh thank you for telling me that, Mark. It seems like something he'd say. His perspective is always spot on with A Course in Miracles, which is based on forgiveness, even though he's never read it.
Quote: 'Forgiveness is the defining teaching of Christianity. Properly understood, forgiveness is not a kind of indulgence—you are bad but I forgive you anyway. Forgiveness comes from the flash of understanding: “If I were in the totality of your situation, I may well have done what you did.” In other words, it comes from a felt recognition of our common humanity. This same understanding is what obviates judgment.'
Wow! 100 Percent agree. That breakdown and explanation was masterful. What a gift you have for this analyzing. So each side needs the other for existence and their is a controller above who benefits. The old divide and conquer. I love the way you break down their complex charade beautifully and make it so easy to see.
It is an interesting pattern, once again, that women are willing to consider this analysis and men, with rare exceptions, are viscerally in opposition to it. That isn't something I'm saying that women are right and men are wrong, but I think it's an important data point to look at. Why are men, in general, insistent that this could never be them no matter what life circumstance they were born into, while women--who should identify more with the victims and therefore be more condemnatory--will consider that no one has been born a monster? It makes me curious.
Are you referencing people that believe or don't believe in religion? Now I'm curious. Maybe Men don't remember their babies like women do. The helpless Innocence.
It was easy for me to see, because once you take christianity or any other devil included religion out of your mind, the devil goes with it. It is very comforting imo.
Also if it's any consolation, I explained your analysis to my hubby and he saw your point clearly.
It sounded like a horrific story that I can't bear to read or even think about. This stuff is scaring. Instead I thought of Flip Wilson's Geraldine say "The Devil Made Me Do It."
Guy and I also had a long exchange over Anneke lol. I was so overwhelmed by her interview...of course, I did listen/watch it on the way back from my grandmother's funeral (you may have been on that thread as well - and I haven't forgotten about writing up my experience with my Nanny's passing)...
A really difficult (and unexpected) part of her story for me was hearing how much additional suffering she endured because people didn't believe her....or couldn't handle her story because it was just too much, too terrible, too evil. Or that she has recovered too much. This broke my heart.
I listened to every word of that interview and I believed her.
When she spoke Margaret Sanger's name, there was no question for me that Anneke had interacted with that woman.
Anyway, I have since had several exchanges with people that feel she is "too recovered" and that nobody that survives that kind of trauma comes out that "well". There were some folks that were disappointed by my endorsement of her in a recent post.
Here's an excerpt from a message I received:
"I also had some reservations about the endorsement of Anneke. I see some things in her story and her book that plant some dangerous untruths in people's minds. For one, her assertion she has recovered and moved on from the abuse she alleges is what the Greeks in ancient times also promoted as justification of their sexual abuse of children. That it doesn't have a lasting impact or do lasting damage. A rationale still used today by pedos everywhere.
I have never known anyone who suffered sexual child abuse who wasn't damaged and marked for life and I have known quite a few, so I am hesitant to say I believe the anomaly Anneke's story presents. Though her story is possible, combined with the contents of her book, I can see how predators could use this as justification."
While I hear that many are still struggling to believe her, and find her strength and healing journey as potential justification for predators, I do not concur. What message does this send to victims? Never heal? There is no end to your suffering because even if you come out on the other side, the court of public opinion will judge your recovery. Although I don't think this was the intended message, that is what I ultimately interpreted.
Which begs the question, what amount of healing and recovery is sufficient and who gets to be the judge of that? Certainly not me.
I also did not glean that she has "moved on" from her abuse...more that she has been able to process it. The inability to process traumatic stress is what causes the disorder (PTSD). In her interview, I heard Anneke share the incredibly admirable, hard work she has done to overcome the disorder of her post traumatic stress; not that she has simply moved on.
"Her ability to see the perpetrators as human and vulnerable, and even forgive them, is life-affirming and awe-inspiring. Anneke says, “It takes courage to feel the fear. Courage is already spiritual. You can’t be courageous unless you trust that something is greater than yourself and will catch you.” If she can forgive, who are we to condemn?"
🙌🏼 THIS 🙌🏼
This is exactly where I landed as well. Her ability to see, AND FORGIVE, the parts of her abusers was incredibly powerful for me. To see the injured, broken, vulnerable children in the men that took her to the depths of hell...I have no words. This moved me so deeply. What an inspiration she is.
Thank you for your eloquent thoughts, Tereza. You are a gift.
That's such an interesting reaction, that she's too 'recovered.' Here's my guess--were those reactions from women? Something that I've noticed with my daughters is that the one who's most empathetic (the bereavement counselor) also pushes back against me when I'm bringing stories of other people's trauma, like my neighbor's daughter. It's a finite reservoir that she protects. My middle daughter, who's not always the most empathetic, is much easier to talk with about these things. She doesn't take on the same burden of internalizing the emotion. It's like my oldest feels that it's asking something from her in emotional labor. And I've always said my youngest is my partner in analyzing world trauma because we both have somewhat hardened hearts, and you can't be soft and manipulable or you'll end up refusing to see what's happening because it causes you too much distress when you can't do anything.
For women, it seems like they want to keep Anneke weak and needy or not internalize her trauma. Or maybe they see it as a judgment on other victims if she can recover, rather than the sign of hope I feel it should be.
I also think there's a pattern here with men. I think it's harder for men to sit with something this wrong and not take action. That's something I saw a lot when I was involved with global issues. As long as people didn't know that child slaves harvested their cocoa, they didn't have to do anything about it. So telling them was like I had done something to them because they couldn't eat chocolate and still feel like a good person.
Something I've read about PTSD is that drone operators experience it more than victims of horrific war crimes. Anneke, I think, has been fully able to come back to her innocence, her spark of the divine. I believe that she feels pity for the perpetrators. It sounded like her healing process was, in some ways, more painful than the experience because she had to be numb to it to survive. I see that, in a very different form, in myself and my daughters. When you're in something frightening or traumatic, you can't afford to have the emotions. It's only when you're safe that you can break down.
There was one more thought I woke up with. Being an evil Satanic monster is strong. Being a traumatized child in a man's body is weak. The reaction of "OMG, what was done to you as a child to make you this way?" takes away their power. Isn't that what we want?
I can't express how much your deep thoughts on this mean to me. Thank you for you.
Up until covid i didn't think much in terms of souls. But it seemed like such a desperate attempt to capture souls for evil that i find it difficult to not think in terms of souls. With the world having such a large population now it seems reasonable to think that there are a lot of very young souls around. It seems to me a lot of them have a lot of learning to do.
Would i forgive these sick bastards? In the whole scheme of eternal souls developing here on earth, one life is only a tiny fraction of our existence. I would be glad to kill everyone of those evil ones myself and send their everlasting souls back to try again. Perhaps they are too far gone. Maybe the medempsychosis will be forever, who knows. But please, lets purge them whenever we can.
Or maybe i'm just an immature soul and i don't understand. I'm willing to be wrong and go back and learn again.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Specie. These are hard topics to puzzle through. If any one of us had it figured out, I think the world would have fulfilled its purpose and disappear.
Raised Catholic, I grew up with the idea of a soul being the true and immortal self, the self that entered into a body before it was born and lived when the body was gone. But the word comes from a root that means 'the sea' because it was believed that you were a drop of the ocean and went back to being ocean after death. There was no individuated 'you.'
I now see the concepts of the soul and its free will as being crucial for the Judeo-Christian concepts of sin and guilt, which are more crucial than a belief in God. The soul is the ego-self, the baggage we're born with and haul with us. It's our spiritual body, continuing the idea of separation into the afterlife.
My youngest says that it's the idea of keeping her body, being alone, that terrifies her about death. She's afraid it would be like being suspended forever in space, alone. But the concept of an afterlife with all the souls of the dead seems so cluttered to me. It makes no sense and offends my aesthetic of heaven ;-)
I believe that every baby comes into the world perfectly innocent. There is no baby I would call unlovable. If I raised that baby with love and fairness, to know its own worth and take responsibility for its actions and its own happiness, I'm certain that that child would not, could not grow up to be 'evil.' So how do I blame someone that they were deprived of that kind of childhood?
You're talking about two different things, though, when you talk about forgiveness and consequences. I would have no qualms about the death of every pedo-sadist. But I would want it to end both their suffering and the suffering they could inflict. What's the point of punishment when someone's dead? At that point it's only revenge, not a deterrent. And the desire for revenge, I think, is still part of the domination paradigm.
You might enjoy "Life between Lives" by Michael Newman. In it, he describes the journey of the soul between lives. And you are not overwhelmed by all the souls waiting to manifest - you are "assigned" (yeah, I know) your group of souls, and you know each other, and you are mates, and you learn & grow together. It's an interesting exploration.
Thank you for sharing this interview. I had got about half way through and you inspired me to finish it. It isn't easy hearing about what was done to Anneke and is still happening to children globally. For her to come out of it as such a compassionate and loving human being is something of a miracle of the human spirit.
"Imagine that someone could give you 100% guarantee that the abuse would end, for everyone, for ever, but only if you—like Anneke—could come with an open heart to understand the most ‘evil’ men, forgive and dare I say love them. Would you do it?"
My answer is yes I would forgive them just as she has done. Doesn't mean we don't make them accountable for what they have done but if we take the necessary action to protect the community it's important to do it with love in your heart. As Anneke says repeatedly, intention is everything. And while staying in your heart is incredibly hard under those circumstances it is the best protection you have not to become like those perpetrators. (-:
Oh I'm glad you stayed with it, Kerry, and that you got what I was saying at such a deep level. I'm sure that watching her for 4 hrs did more justice to her words than I could convey. Yes, she is completely a miracle of the human spirit, well put.
And I'm glad you got that distinction between accountability/ protecting the community and having love in your heart. I forgot Anneke's phrase about intention. And I really like that it's your best protection against not becoming like them. Thank you!
Perhaps there are psychopaths who can be changed by having been genuinely forgiven by the victims these psychopaths abuse. Perhaps murderers can be genuinely forgiven too. Perhaps forgiveness is more important and powerful than the vast majority of us realize or imagine.
Thank you, Gary. A young woman posted on my Forgiving Hitler YT that it was her favorite so far. She had a younger brother with Down's Syndrome who was abused by a caretaker and was never the same. She talked about the role that forgiveness had in coming to terms with it and not being ruled by the anger and bitterness. It wasn't about letting the abuser know, it was letting go of her own blame and hostility. If people are not really psychopaths but do feel shame that's buried so deep they don't seem to show it, we're just reinforcing their view of themselves. It doesn't hurt them when we hate them, only us.
When it’s that personal, it seems as if forgiveness might be more challenging. I realize that there are different forms of psychopathy. The worst ones, who make up approximately 1% of the world’s population, are called “essential psychopaths”. Their primary goal in life is to hurt people, to make other people’s lives miserable. They desire to torture and destroy and control. Because they are sadists, they enjoy this behavior. I can’t say that I personally know anyone who qualifies, so it makes it less challenging to forgive such people with deeply flawed and dangerous and depraved personality disorders.
As for the followers of essential psychopaths, they are called “effective psychopaths”. I can’t say I know anyone who fits this description either.
Then there’s are “low-functioning psychopaths”.
The bottom line is that forgiving these people is for the persons doing the forgiving. I still believe that the Law and Justice have a responsibility to protect non-psychopaths from the harm psychopaths do. I don’t see the law of justice being forgiving. The law of mercy? Sure.
I also have never met a psychopath. I wonder if they're a literary invention. As a mother, the idea that one of my daughters could be 'born bad' is absurd. I know some sociopathic kids, but when I look at the reward system for how they were raised, they always got what they wanted for acting out.
I again need to go back to my definition of forgiveness: giving the benefit of the doubt that I would do exactly the same or worse if born into their circumstances. That perspective isn't for the victims, it's the absence of blame and superiority that applies to all of us. I'm in complete agreement on law and justice. I would go further and approve of extra-judicial justice. If I were someone stuck in that life, I think it would be a mercy killing. But done with forgiveness, not revenge. It's not my decision to make and I don't think it would work but I don't think it's morally wrong.
Hmmm. If I met an “essential psychopath” and had the discernment to KNOW he or she was a psychopath, would I kill this person as an act of mercy and forgiveness? Interesting thought experiment.
Psychopathy is a overawing subject matter. I’m reasonably certain that they exist.
One piece of evidence: “psychopaths are recognized as displaying a level of callousness not necessarily seen in all of those with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) or in all sociopaths. And, while both conditions are defined by a combination of traits or temperament and behaviors, one is labeled a psychopath primarily based on his or her traits or temperament, while one is diagnosed as ASPD primarily based on observable behaviors.”
Another piece of evidence: “How is it that a condition that is so common and so influential, and with which nearly all of us are familiar to some extent from the many popular sensationalized accounts, can nonetheless remain under the radar when we are right within its midst? The answer lies in the psychopath’s remarkable capacity for deception. Throughout nature, a variety of predatory and parasitic organisms employ a combination of mimicry and adaptability to prevent other organisms on which they depend from detecting their energy-draining motives. Amongst humans, psychopaths are the keepers of this tradition.”
I suspect that “traits and temperament” have a biological (genetic) component, as much as “mimicry and adaptability” do, as horrific as this is to contemplate.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that most people avoid the subject of psychopathy altogether, preferring to focus on the inherent goodness of all children who later mature into adults.
Gary, I think we need to clarify the definition of evidence. In your first piece, you're quoting a description of a condition that someone made up. I can say that Oppositional Defiance Disorder is recognized by a disregard for authority. I'm supplying the diagnosis and the symptoms but it doesn't make it real.
The second piece of 'evidence' is that no one actually sees it, even though we know what we're looking for because we all saw that movie about Hannibal Lector. But that just shows how shifty and clever they are. They're right here among us and we don't know it!
I think that's actually the opposite of evidence. It points to it being a made-up diagnosis. And I think I'm an anomaly as someone trying to focus on goodness. Everybody else is watching Dexter and talking about all those psychopaths they know exist even though they've never seen them. People like horror, they watch it all the time. I dunno why but it fascinates them.
Are all mental illnesses and personality disorders “conditions some people simply made up”? I think not. I think that brain disorders are as real as cancer and heart disease. These diseases (or illnesses or sicknesses, if you prefer) are described by their symptoms. Are these descriptions of symptoms “made up”, ie imaginary or only in one’s mind? Again, I think not. But people are going to think what they strongly desire to think, ideate, opine, believe or trust -- the evidence be damned. It all comes down to desire.
The problem with (so-called) “evidence” is that the vast majority of people have a strong desire for compartmentalization based on ideology. For example, evil is exclusively put into the theological (or mythical) compartment, and absolutely excluded from the biological (or genetic) compartment. Therefore, when evidence of biological evil is presented, defense mechanisms take over, instead of the highest form of logic, viz critical analysis.
When evil is relegated to theology, it’s easily denied (with denial being one of the most common defense mechanisms) to exist in the natural world. So we redefine the rules of evidence to justify that denial. We call biological (or genetic or natural or physical or concrete or objective) evil (1) a literary invention or (2) made up or (3) no one actually sees/observes it.
Or we make up another word to explain away (with rationalization being another common defense mechanism) evil. We rename evil “sociopathy”.
Maybe the entire discipline of psychology is “made up”, ie not objectively real. Maybe there’s no (so-called) “evidence” for the existence of minds. Maybe (so-called) “defense mechanisms” -- psychologically defined as “Any of various usually unconscious mental processes, including denial, projection, rationalization, and repression, that protect the ego from shame, anxiety, conflict, loss of self-esteem, or other unacceptable feelings or thoughts” -- are unreal because these “unconscious mental processes” cannot be observed. Or maybe it’s defense mechanisms explaining away defense mechanisms.
I suppose that this entire subject matter of psychopathy or biological evil is about political correctness. The phenomenon called “Woke” is political correctness on steroids, made into some form of a civic religion. I think that it’s a mental disorder, but I cannot provide (so-called) “evidence” to prove that what I think is true or real.
I’ll simply leave you with this information, even if you dismiss it as “made up” or imaginary or whatever.
Yes, but feedback is important. If she fired the caretaker, she needs to make it clear why.
This is one of the things I hear from doctors - there is no feedback loop. If the patient doesn't like their treatment, they tend to move on, so the doctor thinks the problem is fixed. Nobody comes back to the doctor for accountability.
Our society is becoming extremely confrontation averse. Rather than say to someone, "I'm sorry, this isn't working out," it's much easier to just ghost them.
It's a sick pyramid of control and I hope people becoming aware about it will make it shrink or disappear. 🙏
Her description of psychopathy is actually the description for narcissism, which comes from wounding like she described here.
"Anneke states that psychopathy comes from the fear that you are unlovable, not the light, not the innocent child. You then seek the substitute for love: release from fear through violence. When you come into the world, she says, you have spirit and that’s reflected by the people who love you. When it’s not reflected back, and no one recognizes your innocence, you think that something’s wrong with you, you’re bad, and don’t see that it’s their limitation."
A psychopath is not this. They basically have no affective empathy, but a lot of cognitive empathy which is the empathy calculated by following rules and expectations. They don't feel fear the same way as described above.
Here's a good video on the issue of empathy in autism vs psychopathy.
https://youtu.be/TajItoz3ftI
Oh that's interesting with the description of narcissism having that psychology. I have wondered whether the connection between childhood vaccines and autism is a feature, not a bug. I'll check out the video.
"I have wondered whether the connection between childhood vaccines and autism is a feature, not a bug."
Without a doubt it's a feature, along with with all the other poisons and brainwashing we're subject to. Key word,"subject."
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/256-chris-exley-the-aluminum-man#details
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/death-by-aluminum-part-2-our-automatic
What's gonna knock your socks off is that there's another category called highly sensitive person and they have both strong cognitive empathy and affective empathy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/highly-sensitive-refuge/201905/do-highly-sensitive-people-have-autism
I remember reading something about daisies vs. orchids, related to that. But sometimes I have to wonder why Latino kids don't have this. The ones I know are living with multiple relatives in noisy neighborhoods with occasional gunshots. And they don't seem to be overstimulated or jumpy. As Anneke shows, kids are so much more capable and resilient than we expect of them. In her case, than should be expected of anyone.
I'm talking out my arse here, but I would suggest that Latinos are more community oriented than whites, and their communities haven't been (quite) as smashed as the black kids (who seem to be getting the lion's share of autism diag-nonsense). I would suggest that this community leads to the children being more supported. And - perhaps (just perhaps) less jabbed.
I'm glad to see more attention on trauma based mi d control, which I believe, along with narrative warfare, to be the true most dangerous weapons in the world.
We all have a choice to become the monster, fight the monster, or go along to get along (often "out of sight, out of mind").
One thing I discovered in my research on the Nazi cult is that Hitler had a twisted sadomasochostic sex life in which he asked women to kick or otherwise hurt him when he got naked. He may have roped his niece into this. She came to live with him at 16 or 17 and killed herself, broken, around four years later.
That's an excellent phrase, Mathew, 'trauma-based mind control.' There's so much in those four words. And in narrative warfare.
I'm sorry to have missed your RTE last night, I was staining a porch before the next four days of rain. That project was eclipsed by water pouring out of the foundation and into the cellar. Tomorrow the sidewalk is getting dug up by the gas company (free!) so the sewage line can be got to ($$$). Nothing like old houses!
But I had an excellent talk with Gabe ahead of time about trauma and abuse, and the tie-ins to how we're being manipulated.
There's so much blamed on Hitler's particular psychosis but what I want to find out is who bankrolled him. Who pulled his puppet strings? I don't believe he acted alone.
Who bankrolled him and pulled his strings? In addition to Prescott Bush, probably worth looking at many others on Wall Street, including the Dulles brothers and Sullivan & Cromwell, plus Montagu Norman (Bank of England), Hjalmar Schacht (Reichsbank) and the usual suspects at The Bank of International Settlements. Also worth looking at the time Hitler spent in the UK and the relatives of his who lived there. Some claim that Hitler had close links to the British establishment but I don't know what those alleged links were. Also worth asking who did the deal with NAZIs to end WWII in Europe and to allow Hitler, Bormann, Kammler and other senior NAZIs to fake their own deaths and exfiltrate to Argentina with vast amounts of loot and high tech. In the early 1950s, The Bilderberg Group was created to manage and launder that loot through European and American banks.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21446910-hitler-in-argentina
Okay but here's my secret suspicion. Where does Rothschild fit in? We know he didn't just let himself be kicked out of Germany and not do anything about it. He's the City of London puppetmaster and we know there's no hesitation about sacrificing your own for the greater good (of yourself.) Where was he and who did he control?
Isn't The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) (secretly) a Rothschild creature/subsidiary?
"All wars are bankers' wars"? Isn't the business model used to manage planet Earth one of central-banking-driven warfare? The BIS is puppetmaster to the network of national central banks and Rothschild is the planet's CFO? I think he operates through the BIS rather than The City of London, which answers to (or is a subsidiary of) the BIS. Perhaps more discreet that way? The BIS's relationship with Hitler and the NAZIs was certainly close.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54906905-tower-of-basel
Ohhh... good clues and good points.
I believe the answers are in the books - Tower of Basel (2014), Adam Lebor (oh, duh, sees Tirion's link) & Rise of the Fourth Reich (2008), Jim Marrs.
There is no doubt Hitler was not the mastermind. He was an abused Austrian boy with an Oedopus complex whose love of mother made him charming to a circle of German elite women who took him in and likely prepared him for a role. The Prussians had already built a schooling system (Frederick the Great) for lobotomizing children, so they knew the art of sculpting gholas.
We are told Hitler was a painter, but he spent time acting. Oddly, his IMDB profile is absent, but his propaganda department was run by the directors of the films he appeared in with small roles. This was likely part of the preparation.
The Hitler Youth were often camped in the U.S. while U.S. corporations (possibly controlled by the British in many cases) and banks (Harriman via Prescott Bush, GHWB's father) bankrolled or otherwise aided the Nazis.
At the end, we see Rockefeller's team directing the Nuremberg trials and helping place key Nazis in major positions of power in the post-WW2 landscape.
I was out last night with a business partner, so I haven't seen last night's Locals video myself, but I'll view it tonight while working on an article or info organization.
🤯
I reckon he was the face. Just the face.
Those around him were certainly stronger personalities, minds, etc., than he was.
I suppose you can look at the eugenicists who funded both sides of that war.
Great observation.
You certainly present a lot of fascinating stuff!
I only could stomach a few minutes of the video and when Anneke said that they made you kill so that you lose your innocence, the thought occured to me that that's probably another reason (among the many sick ones) for sending young people off to war...
Anyway, thanks a million times for the work you do.
Thank you Geoff and I'm glad I watched it so you didn't have to. I have a low tolerance for horror and things get stuck in my head that I wish I hadn't put there. That was why I felt that Brecht was goading her into more graphic stories than we needed. Yet Anneke told every story with the detachment of having spent 30 years processing it and bringing meaning out of it. It actually had the opposite effect of a horror story. It made me feel that people could go through the worst possible things and have a spiritual presence at the time that makes it tolerable. She also has a beautiful smile and feels very strongly that we're at a point where things are coming out because they're about to be resolved.
Interesting thought about the tie-in to young people and war.
Speaking of humiliation and trauma, how about Government and the medical cartel perpetrating a pandemic and then enlisting doctors and nurses to murder their patients with Remdesivir and ventilators after sending the patients home with no guidance until they turn blue...and if we talk about it we are called monsters?
Absolutely, William. It's a very sick and diabolical plan. Making doctors and nurses complicit--not knowingly but unable to admit the truth without questioning their own actions--was the same playbook used on Anneke.
I was just thinking that as I read the article.
Thanks for drawing my attention back to this article and that observation. It goes through so many things, it's such an important part--make the victim complicit with the illusion of choice. Thanks for reading this!
Yeah, and "Trans ideology doesn't have anything to do with sterilizing girls, turning boys into eunuchs and lowering the age of consent. None of that is happening bigot!!!"
Does the Trans Agenda Stuff fit into a Cult?
I just watched a Dawkins interview of Helen Joyce "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" -- (51 mins) -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu72Lu5FqE4
They seem pretty balanced in their assessments. I mentioned in another Stack, my kids got introduced to pronoun usage at a summer camp at a Private School. My complaint was met with a Lame policy excuse.
That's a good example, Peter, but I think it fits into Dalrymple's definition of propaganda. What we--kids in particular--are being asked to accept is humiliating, something that so goes against our common sense that we have to twist into pretzels to make it okay. The pronoun use is ridiculous. And it steals our self-respect when we do it. But those who champion it are being manipulated in all kinds of ways, using their love and inclusiveness against them, being told they're not a good person if they don't do this. So yes, I would say it's also a cult.
I recommend her book. Very balanced and thorough. YES, she quotes the "transphobes" (as proclaimed by the Woke), and relies on them as sources. What she presents is very compelling.
For Example: Helen mentions during Olympic or University Swim competitions, the women have to change in the same room, as the previously identified male (now female identifying - but not surgically manipulated), even if they had traumatic experiences, were sex assault survivors, or uncomfortable with it. Same goes for the Bathroom usage.
I'd be quitting the team. I don't want to be worrying about seeing peen when I'm preparing for a sporting match. Really, how can that be good for the team? Even if the peen is a superb teammate?
JC - it's forced abuse and would be considered indecent exposure in any municipality. It is humiliating for those women - but to protest, the women would risk giving up Sponsorships, Wages, or Scholarships in some cases. It is very clever and evil. Perhaps all the women in any given event should go to the final then not Participate (in unison), and do that ad nauseum, while providing NO COMMENT.
"Imagine that someone could give you 100% guarantee that the abuse would end, for everyone, for ever, but only if you—like Anneke—could come with an open heart to understand the most ‘evil’ men, forgive and dare I say love them. Would you do it?"
---------
I think so, but only because I knew it would stop the abuse. Without such a guarantee..........
Haha, that was my next question. At what percentage would it not be worth it? 75%? 50%? 25%? If there was ANY chance it would end the behavior, would it be worth it?
The reward is so high that calculation of pot odds makes me want to say it's worth it even at a very low number, but my human nature wants more of a guarantee!
That's exactly the response I was hoping for, SimCom. From where we sit in the cheap seats, our condemnation can't do anything. The first step in forgiveness is to take away all potential for it to happen, not just for the sake of the victims but also for the perpetrators.
If I imagine that the perpetrators, in the privacy of their beds, are futilely downing prescription drugs to keep the nightmares away, I feel more motivated rather than less. And I feel more hopeful because then, there's something in them that wants the nightmare to end. They're not the Hollywood version of the psychopath but a tortured anguished soul who longs for and fears death in equal measures.
Thank you. forgiveness = when we know that we are of the same flesh and blood and therefore have the same possibility of doing hideous things as the one who kills or rapes or defrauds or demeans others. Trying to say that we would not be like other people will end in violence because we must kill off the niggling truth that the other is NOT different from us.
As an eastern Orthodox Christian, I go to confession and this acknowledgement is the truest gift of confession.
Thanks for your astute comment, FL. I share your belief that we're the same but come to the opposite conclusion--they are born as innocent and perfect as we are. What happens to turn them capable of doing hideous things? That's what my focus is. Your observation that "Trying to say that we would not be like other people will end in violence because we must kill off the niggling truth that the other is NOT different from us" is perceptive.
I just posted a video looking at the theology of this called And the Flesh Was Made Word: https://youtu.be/Hr5AETbonac. I'm working on the Substack version now. Thanks for reading!
Thank you for sharing your incredible insights and thoughtful questions. 🙏🌹
Some people in the spiritual, healing movement, people who have been abused, not only forgive their abusers and people who have killed and a harmed others, but defend them, attack those who do not chose to "forgive" sadists, rapists, pedos, murderers and mRNA inventors.
I've noticed a tendency in many people to have compassion for people who they understand. Maybe they can imagine themselves committing a specific crime so they forgive those criminals but they are intolerant of other crimes.
Some who feel true peace is in forgiveness, have intolerance for unforgiving people.
I believe your insight ties into this lack of tolerance in some people.
Their triggers are acceptable but yours are not. You should forgive who they forgive and be intolerant of who they do not forgive. You should put up with bad behaviors that minimize some people's suffering... but not forgive people who speak out agaisnt those minimizing suffering. Forgive the abuser but not the person who will not forgive the abuser.
I'm not sure if this makes sense. I guess all I really know is, should and shouldn't are thought terminating, manipulative concepts, used to pressure others to submit. We are all on this path alone, together, sharpening each others swords with wisdom and knowledge. I really appreciate this article which ties in many of the struggles I've been working on inside myself coming to terms.
Peace and blessings to you 🙏
Heidi, I'm so honored that you subbed my stack. And that's a very short list I made. Thank you! And it tells me that this is a continuing conversation, and I'm grateful for that.
It is a subtle and complicated point, and I don't know if it's one I'm trying to make or trying to puzzle out. Rather than forgiveness as defending the behavior, I'm looking at it as saying, "Whatever someone else has done I would do in their shoes." So I guess that spiritual stance would also apply to however someone else reacts. If I were them, I'd react that way too. I'm not responsible for anyone's experiment other than my own.
For instance, Malone. I don't blame him for being a lying manipulative bioterrorism agent who wants to keep the killing going. It's who he was born to be, it's what his whole career and family history has led him to. My role is to do everything possible to expose him and thwart him from ever having power over us. But I'm not angry with him and I don't think I'm better than him. I was just born to a different role.
I could never imagine myself doing the things that Anneke describes done to her. But when we simply write it off as 'these are bad, evil people,' we stop asking 'why?' We assume behavior has no cause. It was used in 9-11 to say nonsense like, "They hate us because we love freedom." So people never asked, "Why would someone do this?" much less, "Did they actually do it?"
When RFK and Kirsch talk about healing the divide and forgiveness, what they mean is never calling out and condemning the behaviors, never getting to the cause of who did what for this to happen. Never exposing the truth. Obama used the same trick with "We need to move forward not look back." Fuck yes, we need to look back.
I try not to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. How would I know when I'm not in their situation? My only dogma is that I'm no better than anyone else. Because of that, I'm always asking, "Why are they doing that?" I don't think people do things without a reason that makes sense to them, which isn't the same as excusing the behavior. If the objective is to change the behavior, knowing why--from their perspective--is the most important piece of information. It doesn't mean you have to do anything with that. I don't know if that makes sense.
🙏💞
It makes perfect sense. I agree completely.
There but for the Grace of God, go I.
One decision, one turn, one butterfly flapping it's wings, and I could be/could have been the monster.
It is diligence, observance, which prevents me from falling - but - there but for the Grace of God, go I. How easy it would be to slip and fall! This awareness is essential for the ability to trust, and to extend compassion to the least - and the greatest - of us.
It's not forgiveness, more on the order of compassion. The people @Heidi Heil describes are not touching their compassion. It's still in their heads.
I've thought a lot about that phrase, JC. I don't use it anymore. What it conveys is an unfair God who gives out grace to some but not others, who sets the circumstances so that some fall and fail while others succeed. My perspective now is "There go I, reflected in a different mirror." When anyone slips and falls, there go I. But none of it is the real me, not the body "I" call 'I'. Figuring out my own 'reality' is the butterfly wing that changes all of it. IMHO.
Mmmm. I guess it depends on how you define "God," which for me, is not a "person" or "entity" but a direction towards Source, joined to the Light Within. Grace is a vital concept in Yoga & Vedic teachings. It ain't the same as Grace for some and not for others, and it ain't the same as Christian Grace. Grace is available to all, but it must be courted, like a lover. A closer English word to the Vedic one, might be "Gnosis," or "Awakening."
I use the phrase to remind myself of compassion. That could be me (like your mirror). It is arrogant to believe (and I love the Bucky Fuller stuff, wherever that was - I've been reading so much of your stuff, I can't keep track) that *I* am somehow different, special, or immune to evil and committing evil. We all have that potential. That could be me.
It's when you achieve that awareness that you can choose. "Enlightenment" (I'm very careful about using that word) is a process, not a goal.
I think we're in semantic and cultural background territory here.
Yes, I do get that and I knew that was how you meant it, as a means to compassion. It's just one of those semantic habits I'm trying to break, myself, like two ways to skin a cat or killing two birds with one stone. Now I say lighting two flames with one match ;-)
Thanks for all the reading! Bucky was in the Quantum Sex & Dragon Chakras episode. I love his stuff too.
I have such a hard time looking into pedo stuff. I know I owe it to humanity to not look away. As if absorbing the horror can somehow alíviate the cruelty. Witnessing it allows it to resonate in the morphic fields of our shared consciousness and therefore make room for healing.
Thank you for always expanding our perspectives by not only giving information but tying it into the vast tapestry of connections. There’s more to comb through here (and all the posts I’ve missed while traveling!!) but I’m starting to make my way.
Sorry such a long time replying to this but I wanted to say that you don't owe it to anyone to absorb the horror. I don't think that sharing the suffering lessens it. What I liked about Anneke was her lightness and certainty that there was a spiritual presence helping her through this, and that she knew it was bringing about a new world without this darkness in it. Her ability to even love the perpetrators, after she was away from it all where it wasn't a Stockholm Syndrome thing, was astounding to me. So I say to absorb what you can without getting bogged down by it but don't make it a burden. Anneke is proof that there's more at work in the worst of circumstances than we can imagine, so you don't have to fix it or share it.
I truly love that. It goes along with that idea that we must love even those we consider unlovable, because had we been in their shoes, had we their path im life, we would have done the same. I know Eisenstein speaks to that and so does Thich Nhat Hahn. It’s part of the healing. It’s not so much an obligation I feel to witness and absorb, but an understanding that I can act as a filter for the transformation needed. ‘How can I help shift the paradigm?’
Charles and Thich Nhat Hahn, two of my favorite people, especially on this topic!
Dark.. This post by Professor Hamamoto sheds light on the JoeBenet Ramsey case, it seems related:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/98734047?utm_campaign=postshare_fan
Thanks, T.
A belated thank you for this piece!
I'm pretty sure Charles Eisenstein has written something very much in tune with you about the topic of forgiveness. I don't know if I could find his article now, but I recall he was talking about how people like to believe that they wouldn't do what those other "bad people" did if they were in the same situation, but that's essentially a way of asserting one's moral superiority to the rest of the human race. This really shook me up, and it's helping me to be more understanding of my family members and friends who seemed to have gone insane in the scamdemic. I have to accept the idea that I might have gone insane in the same way if I'd had the same life history as they.
Oh thank you for telling me that, Mark. It seems like something he'd say. His perspective is always spot on with A Course in Miracles, which is based on forgiveness, even though he's never read it.
Here is the Eisenstein article: https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/a-temple-of-this-earth
Quote: 'Forgiveness is the defining teaching of Christianity. Properly understood, forgiveness is not a kind of indulgence—you are bad but I forgive you anyway. Forgiveness comes from the flash of understanding: “If I were in the totality of your situation, I may well have done what you did.” In other words, it comes from a felt recognition of our common humanity. This same understanding is what obviates judgment.'
Thanks very much for that, Mark. I'll cite it in my next article on this topic, it's perfect.
Wow! 100 Percent agree. That breakdown and explanation was masterful. What a gift you have for this analyzing. So each side needs the other for existence and their is a controller above who benefits. The old divide and conquer. I love the way you break down their complex charade beautifully and make it so easy to see.
It is an interesting pattern, once again, that women are willing to consider this analysis and men, with rare exceptions, are viscerally in opposition to it. That isn't something I'm saying that women are right and men are wrong, but I think it's an important data point to look at. Why are men, in general, insistent that this could never be them no matter what life circumstance they were born into, while women--who should identify more with the victims and therefore be more condemnatory--will consider that no one has been born a monster? It makes me curious.
Are you referencing people that believe or don't believe in religion? Now I'm curious. Maybe Men don't remember their babies like women do. The helpless Innocence.
It was easy for me to see, because once you take christianity or any other devil included religion out of your mind, the devil goes with it. It is very comforting imo.
Also if it's any consolation, I explained your analysis to my hubby and he saw your point clearly.
It sounded like a horrific story that I can't bear to read or even think about. This stuff is scaring. Instead I thought of Flip Wilson's Geraldine say "The Devil Made Me Do It."
Another good point. Religion includes both men and women believing in evil.
Clearly you married the right man ;-)
Tereza, thank you for this.
Guy and I also had a long exchange over Anneke lol. I was so overwhelmed by her interview...of course, I did listen/watch it on the way back from my grandmother's funeral (you may have been on that thread as well - and I haven't forgotten about writing up my experience with my Nanny's passing)...
A really difficult (and unexpected) part of her story for me was hearing how much additional suffering she endured because people didn't believe her....or couldn't handle her story because it was just too much, too terrible, too evil. Or that she has recovered too much. This broke my heart.
I listened to every word of that interview and I believed her.
When she spoke Margaret Sanger's name, there was no question for me that Anneke had interacted with that woman.
Anyway, I have since had several exchanges with people that feel she is "too recovered" and that nobody that survives that kind of trauma comes out that "well". There were some folks that were disappointed by my endorsement of her in a recent post.
Here's an excerpt from a message I received:
"I also had some reservations about the endorsement of Anneke. I see some things in her story and her book that plant some dangerous untruths in people's minds. For one, her assertion she has recovered and moved on from the abuse she alleges is what the Greeks in ancient times also promoted as justification of their sexual abuse of children. That it doesn't have a lasting impact or do lasting damage. A rationale still used today by pedos everywhere.
I have never known anyone who suffered sexual child abuse who wasn't damaged and marked for life and I have known quite a few, so I am hesitant to say I believe the anomaly Anneke's story presents. Though her story is possible, combined with the contents of her book, I can see how predators could use this as justification."
While I hear that many are still struggling to believe her, and find her strength and healing journey as potential justification for predators, I do not concur. What message does this send to victims? Never heal? There is no end to your suffering because even if you come out on the other side, the court of public opinion will judge your recovery. Although I don't think this was the intended message, that is what I ultimately interpreted.
Which begs the question, what amount of healing and recovery is sufficient and who gets to be the judge of that? Certainly not me.
I also did not glean that she has "moved on" from her abuse...more that she has been able to process it. The inability to process traumatic stress is what causes the disorder (PTSD). In her interview, I heard Anneke share the incredibly admirable, hard work she has done to overcome the disorder of her post traumatic stress; not that she has simply moved on.
"Her ability to see the perpetrators as human and vulnerable, and even forgive them, is life-affirming and awe-inspiring. Anneke says, “It takes courage to feel the fear. Courage is already spiritual. You can’t be courageous unless you trust that something is greater than yourself and will catch you.” If she can forgive, who are we to condemn?"
🙌🏼 THIS 🙌🏼
This is exactly where I landed as well. Her ability to see, AND FORGIVE, the parts of her abusers was incredibly powerful for me. To see the injured, broken, vulnerable children in the men that took her to the depths of hell...I have no words. This moved me so deeply. What an inspiration she is.
Thank you for your eloquent thoughts, Tereza. You are a gift.
That's such an interesting reaction, that she's too 'recovered.' Here's my guess--were those reactions from women? Something that I've noticed with my daughters is that the one who's most empathetic (the bereavement counselor) also pushes back against me when I'm bringing stories of other people's trauma, like my neighbor's daughter. It's a finite reservoir that she protects. My middle daughter, who's not always the most empathetic, is much easier to talk with about these things. She doesn't take on the same burden of internalizing the emotion. It's like my oldest feels that it's asking something from her in emotional labor. And I've always said my youngest is my partner in analyzing world trauma because we both have somewhat hardened hearts, and you can't be soft and manipulable or you'll end up refusing to see what's happening because it causes you too much distress when you can't do anything.
For women, it seems like they want to keep Anneke weak and needy or not internalize her trauma. Or maybe they see it as a judgment on other victims if she can recover, rather than the sign of hope I feel it should be.
I also think there's a pattern here with men. I think it's harder for men to sit with something this wrong and not take action. That's something I saw a lot when I was involved with global issues. As long as people didn't know that child slaves harvested their cocoa, they didn't have to do anything about it. So telling them was like I had done something to them because they couldn't eat chocolate and still feel like a good person.
Something I've read about PTSD is that drone operators experience it more than victims of horrific war crimes. Anneke, I think, has been fully able to come back to her innocence, her spark of the divine. I believe that she feels pity for the perpetrators. It sounded like her healing process was, in some ways, more painful than the experience because she had to be numb to it to survive. I see that, in a very different form, in myself and my daughters. When you're in something frightening or traumatic, you can't afford to have the emotions. It's only when you're safe that you can break down.
There was one more thought I woke up with. Being an evil Satanic monster is strong. Being a traumatized child in a man's body is weak. The reaction of "OMG, what was done to you as a child to make you this way?" takes away their power. Isn't that what we want?
I can't express how much your deep thoughts on this mean to me. Thank you for you.
Up until covid i didn't think much in terms of souls. But it seemed like such a desperate attempt to capture souls for evil that i find it difficult to not think in terms of souls. With the world having such a large population now it seems reasonable to think that there are a lot of very young souls around. It seems to me a lot of them have a lot of learning to do.
Would i forgive these sick bastards? In the whole scheme of eternal souls developing here on earth, one life is only a tiny fraction of our existence. I would be glad to kill everyone of those evil ones myself and send their everlasting souls back to try again. Perhaps they are too far gone. Maybe the medempsychosis will be forever, who knows. But please, lets purge them whenever we can.
Or maybe i'm just an immature soul and i don't understand. I'm willing to be wrong and go back and learn again.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Specie. These are hard topics to puzzle through. If any one of us had it figured out, I think the world would have fulfilled its purpose and disappear.
Raised Catholic, I grew up with the idea of a soul being the true and immortal self, the self that entered into a body before it was born and lived when the body was gone. But the word comes from a root that means 'the sea' because it was believed that you were a drop of the ocean and went back to being ocean after death. There was no individuated 'you.'
I now see the concepts of the soul and its free will as being crucial for the Judeo-Christian concepts of sin and guilt, which are more crucial than a belief in God. The soul is the ego-self, the baggage we're born with and haul with us. It's our spiritual body, continuing the idea of separation into the afterlife.
My youngest says that it's the idea of keeping her body, being alone, that terrifies her about death. She's afraid it would be like being suspended forever in space, alone. But the concept of an afterlife with all the souls of the dead seems so cluttered to me. It makes no sense and offends my aesthetic of heaven ;-)
I believe that every baby comes into the world perfectly innocent. There is no baby I would call unlovable. If I raised that baby with love and fairness, to know its own worth and take responsibility for its actions and its own happiness, I'm certain that that child would not, could not grow up to be 'evil.' So how do I blame someone that they were deprived of that kind of childhood?
You're talking about two different things, though, when you talk about forgiveness and consequences. I would have no qualms about the death of every pedo-sadist. But I would want it to end both their suffering and the suffering they could inflict. What's the point of punishment when someone's dead? At that point it's only revenge, not a deterrent. And the desire for revenge, I think, is still part of the domination paradigm.
We're pretty close on a lot of other important things. Not so much here. Best to leave this alone and wait for the next subject. Thank you.
You might enjoy "Life between Lives" by Michael Newman. In it, he describes the journey of the soul between lives. And you are not overwhelmed by all the souls waiting to manifest - you are "assigned" (yeah, I know) your group of souls, and you know each other, and you are mates, and you learn & grow together. It's an interesting exploration.
Thank you for sharing this interview. I had got about half way through and you inspired me to finish it. It isn't easy hearing about what was done to Anneke and is still happening to children globally. For her to come out of it as such a compassionate and loving human being is something of a miracle of the human spirit.
"Imagine that someone could give you 100% guarantee that the abuse would end, for everyone, for ever, but only if you—like Anneke—could come with an open heart to understand the most ‘evil’ men, forgive and dare I say love them. Would you do it?"
My answer is yes I would forgive them just as she has done. Doesn't mean we don't make them accountable for what they have done but if we take the necessary action to protect the community it's important to do it with love in your heart. As Anneke says repeatedly, intention is everything. And while staying in your heart is incredibly hard under those circumstances it is the best protection you have not to become like those perpetrators. (-:
Oh I'm glad you stayed with it, Kerry, and that you got what I was saying at such a deep level. I'm sure that watching her for 4 hrs did more justice to her words than I could convey. Yes, she is completely a miracle of the human spirit, well put.
And I'm glad you got that distinction between accountability/ protecting the community and having love in your heart. I forgot Anneke's phrase about intention. And I really like that it's your best protection against not becoming like them. Thank you!
Strong difference between forgiveness - and boundaries.
Perhaps there are psychopaths who can be changed by having been genuinely forgiven by the victims these psychopaths abuse. Perhaps murderers can be genuinely forgiven too. Perhaps forgiveness is more important and powerful than the vast majority of us realize or imagine.
Thank you, Gary. A young woman posted on my Forgiving Hitler YT that it was her favorite so far. She had a younger brother with Down's Syndrome who was abused by a caretaker and was never the same. She talked about the role that forgiveness had in coming to terms with it and not being ruled by the anger and bitterness. It wasn't about letting the abuser know, it was letting go of her own blame and hostility. If people are not really psychopaths but do feel shame that's buried so deep they don't seem to show it, we're just reinforcing their view of themselves. It doesn't hurt them when we hate them, only us.
When it’s that personal, it seems as if forgiveness might be more challenging. I realize that there are different forms of psychopathy. The worst ones, who make up approximately 1% of the world’s population, are called “essential psychopaths”. Their primary goal in life is to hurt people, to make other people’s lives miserable. They desire to torture and destroy and control. Because they are sadists, they enjoy this behavior. I can’t say that I personally know anyone who qualifies, so it makes it less challenging to forgive such people with deeply flawed and dangerous and depraved personality disorders.
As for the followers of essential psychopaths, they are called “effective psychopaths”. I can’t say I know anyone who fits this description either.
Then there’s are “low-functioning psychopaths”.
The bottom line is that forgiving these people is for the persons doing the forgiving. I still believe that the Law and Justice have a responsibility to protect non-psychopaths from the harm psychopaths do. I don’t see the law of justice being forgiving. The law of mercy? Sure.
I also have never met a psychopath. I wonder if they're a literary invention. As a mother, the idea that one of my daughters could be 'born bad' is absurd. I know some sociopathic kids, but when I look at the reward system for how they were raised, they always got what they wanted for acting out.
I again need to go back to my definition of forgiveness: giving the benefit of the doubt that I would do exactly the same or worse if born into their circumstances. That perspective isn't for the victims, it's the absence of blame and superiority that applies to all of us. I'm in complete agreement on law and justice. I would go further and approve of extra-judicial justice. If I were someone stuck in that life, I think it would be a mercy killing. But done with forgiveness, not revenge. It's not my decision to make and I don't think it would work but I don't think it's morally wrong.
Hmmm. If I met an “essential psychopath” and had the discernment to KNOW he or she was a psychopath, would I kill this person as an act of mercy and forgiveness? Interesting thought experiment.
Psychopathy is a overawing subject matter. I’m reasonably certain that they exist.
One piece of evidence: “psychopaths are recognized as displaying a level of callousness not necessarily seen in all of those with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) or in all sociopaths. And, while both conditions are defined by a combination of traits or temperament and behaviors, one is labeled a psychopath primarily based on his or her traits or temperament, while one is diagnosed as ASPD primarily based on observable behaviors.”
Another piece of evidence: “How is it that a condition that is so common and so influential, and with which nearly all of us are familiar to some extent from the many popular sensationalized accounts, can nonetheless remain under the radar when we are right within its midst? The answer lies in the psychopath’s remarkable capacity for deception. Throughout nature, a variety of predatory and parasitic organisms employ a combination of mimicry and adaptability to prevent other organisms on which they depend from detecting their energy-draining motives. Amongst humans, psychopaths are the keepers of this tradition.”
I suspect that “traits and temperament” have a biological (genetic) component, as much as “mimicry and adaptability” do, as horrific as this is to contemplate.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that most people avoid the subject of psychopathy altogether, preferring to focus on the inherent goodness of all children who later mature into adults.
Gary, I think we need to clarify the definition of evidence. In your first piece, you're quoting a description of a condition that someone made up. I can say that Oppositional Defiance Disorder is recognized by a disregard for authority. I'm supplying the diagnosis and the symptoms but it doesn't make it real.
The second piece of 'evidence' is that no one actually sees it, even though we know what we're looking for because we all saw that movie about Hannibal Lector. But that just shows how shifty and clever they are. They're right here among us and we don't know it!
I think that's actually the opposite of evidence. It points to it being a made-up diagnosis. And I think I'm an anomaly as someone trying to focus on goodness. Everybody else is watching Dexter and talking about all those psychopaths they know exist even though they've never seen them. People like horror, they watch it all the time. I dunno why but it fascinates them.
Are all mental illnesses and personality disorders “conditions some people simply made up”? I think not. I think that brain disorders are as real as cancer and heart disease. These diseases (or illnesses or sicknesses, if you prefer) are described by their symptoms. Are these descriptions of symptoms “made up”, ie imaginary or only in one’s mind? Again, I think not. But people are going to think what they strongly desire to think, ideate, opine, believe or trust -- the evidence be damned. It all comes down to desire.
The problem with (so-called) “evidence” is that the vast majority of people have a strong desire for compartmentalization based on ideology. For example, evil is exclusively put into the theological (or mythical) compartment, and absolutely excluded from the biological (or genetic) compartment. Therefore, when evidence of biological evil is presented, defense mechanisms take over, instead of the highest form of logic, viz critical analysis.
When evil is relegated to theology, it’s easily denied (with denial being one of the most common defense mechanisms) to exist in the natural world. So we redefine the rules of evidence to justify that denial. We call biological (or genetic or natural or physical or concrete or objective) evil (1) a literary invention or (2) made up or (3) no one actually sees/observes it.
Or we make up another word to explain away (with rationalization being another common defense mechanism) evil. We rename evil “sociopathy”.
Maybe the entire discipline of psychology is “made up”, ie not objectively real. Maybe there’s no (so-called) “evidence” for the existence of minds. Maybe (so-called) “defense mechanisms” -- psychologically defined as “Any of various usually unconscious mental processes, including denial, projection, rationalization, and repression, that protect the ego from shame, anxiety, conflict, loss of self-esteem, or other unacceptable feelings or thoughts” -- are unreal because these “unconscious mental processes” cannot be observed. Or maybe it’s defense mechanisms explaining away defense mechanisms.
I suppose that this entire subject matter of psychopathy or biological evil is about political correctness. The phenomenon called “Woke” is political correctness on steroids, made into some form of a civic religion. I think that it’s a mental disorder, but I cannot provide (so-called) “evidence” to prove that what I think is true or real.
I’ll simply leave you with this information, even if you dismiss it as “made up” or imaginary or whatever.
Yes, but feedback is important. If she fired the caretaker, she needs to make it clear why.
This is one of the things I hear from doctors - there is no feedback loop. If the patient doesn't like their treatment, they tend to move on, so the doctor thinks the problem is fixed. Nobody comes back to the doctor for accountability.
Our society is becoming extremely confrontation averse. Rather than say to someone, "I'm sorry, this isn't working out," it's much easier to just ghost them.