This is not the way to entice those who somehow bellieve they were abused to roll over and think like you do when they come to this site. Certain aspects of this type of evidence gathering and reporting do not lend to objective analysis of your writings by those unfamiliar with these topics when it’s all in a mockery fashion and bar comedy routine. We know that lots of people believe in Jesus. Would it be appropriate to attend a church and come back with a story that they all said amen when the minister talks about their savior having rose from the dead-literally? All the atheists don’t believe this story but I wonder how many would approve that one should mock them. It’s much easier to destroy a marginalised group like the conspiracy theorists when flaws are discovered in them but much harder to change people’s perceptions of more secure groups. For example even though hardly anybody likes psychiatrists people will still recommend somebody they know in distress to see one. Inconsistencies over what works in the mental health regime as treatment are ignored when they see examples and case studies of raving psychotics return to a balanced state with a couple of medications. These types of examples are carted out and on top of the respect that doctors have, allow psychiatrists to make up new definitions of illness and employ disabling treatments such as ect. For a really great story to report look up the main ect doctor searched on the internet under ect hall of shame. That man is under five feet tall and has spread lies about ect and is responsible for directing government funds for research on ect.

Doug has done nothing wrong, whatsoever, that I am aware of. His attendance of that SMART conference and his subsequent report on it, was HEROIC!
Cultesque organizations & individuals who are engaged in efforts to influence public health policies and/or legal reforms, have no right to cloister themselves off from the public, to declare that only ‘true believers’ can attend their conferences – not when they are registered as charities and possibly funded in part through government grant monies. Bringing forth the truth of their activities, into the light of day as Doug did, is frankly an important & praisworthy public service.

in your first comment, you said:
“Perhaps that guy at the convention was fraudulent. We’ll never know, but you weren’t much of an upfront man to kindly have a chat with him. That’s why he sued you.”
by “that guy”, you clearly mean neil brick, organizer of SMART. you concede that perhaps he “was fraudulent”, but i’m wondering why you assume we can never really know? maybe we can’t know, just as we can’t know anything, really, with 100% certainty, but wouldn’t you agree that we can set varying levels of probability? i’m curious as to what it would take, hypothetically, to make you agree that certain satanic abuse/conspiracy narratives are almost certainly not true? in the case of neil brick, he claims that he was part of a government brain-washing project during his childhood, during which he was shaped into a CIA/Illuminati assassin. at what point would you agree that this probably isn’t true? if we were able to establish a timeline of his childhood which detailed his schooling from elementary school on, would you agree that he could not have also been undergoing any rigorous training within the CIA at that time?
stationary, you seem to make the same mistake that many of the SRA faithful make: the idea that it is better to error on the side of believing the self-proclaimed victim of satanic abuse, even if all the facts don’t add up, than to risk dismissing and belittling a real victim. here again, there is no sense of probability. the idea seems to be that we can never know the full truth, so on balance it is better to “believe the victim”. of course, it is not that simple. let me frame it for you with a different scenario: take the salem witch trials (just an earlier manifestation of our own satanic panic). from your point of view, we could say, ‘we will never know if these girls were victims of witchcraft or not. therefore, we had best assume that they are…’ the problem in this position is that it is not a victimless position. if we accept that the girls are victims of witchcraft, we then accept that the culprits they named are, in fact, witches. in turn, we then victimize people based on false allegations. you see, “stationary”, we are both trying to advocate for victims, the dispute is in the question of who is actually being victimized. i feel that false claims of abuse are an injustice not only to the falsely accused, but also of real victims of actual abuse who find their cause hijacked by the paranoid and/or opportunistic.
i find this comment by you very curious: “I would erase all stories about that meeting on here with doug and that man and move on.” by “that man”, you clearly again mean neil brick. obviously, you find my report from the SMART conference very disturbing. i actually think this is a good sign. i hope that ultimately, some of the information you find here can help you to think differently, critically evaluate information better, and maybe eventually you’ll be happy that — no matter what — these things i’ve written will always be available online.

I will say as I said in the first line of my second post here that I confused a couple of names. Gaian was confused with Gor. That I galloped on to make further comments about the nature of the site is true. I just thought that somebody who managed to be sued for trespassing in a private group is the type of person who would be capable of using your username in a clandestine manner to also post to find some type of truth or prove a point with sra people. Doug knows what he did damaged his character even to those on here and perhaps he should apologize to that man and sra members not for their sake but to restore decency to the truth finding cause. And GaianGuy you should apologize to Rosie. I was off-based in commenting about possible s and m ties. I would erase all stories about that meeting on here with doug and that man and move on. In terms of advertising the name process could signify many things but ulltimately it means nothing to people who come to this site so perhaps an explanation is due. Let’s move on. I will acknowledge that even people who seek the truth make judgement mistakes. Perhaps I in fact unfairly trashed you GaianGuy and perhaps I could have concentrated on the behavior and not the person.

“[They further define Gaian beliefs as referring “to any and all conceptions of the Earth as a single living organism of which humans are part, and, in particular, those which regard this Earth organism as sacred, holy, or divine.”]”

But, of course, I can’t tell user Stationary what “Gaian” really means to me – that would spoil his/her/it’s desire to make up paranoid & threatening definitions for terms that they don’t understand.

Another profoundly under-educated person, this “stationary”, either too dimwitted or too lazy to make the effort of educating themselves. It’s so much easier for them to go around making up ignorant nonsense, in feeble attempts to compensate for their knowledge deficits, and then hurl hateful diatribes at genuinely knowledgeable person who take the time & point out the falsehoods in what they’ve said.

“What comes to mind is a tyrannical state jargon vaguely remeniscient of fascism…”
and
“I’m afraid the operation of logic in man must be operated by intelligence and although you can sppot simple logical errors the fact that you can’t see past your own bullshit or be stymied to not open your mouth in situations even a child would know makes you look rather incomplete. Perhaps you can go find some silly cause that only dumbasses know”

That second paragraph is totally incoherent rambling. Perhaps a child, trying to sound insightful or profound? I encountered similarly nonsensical ramblings on a forum devoted to “the occult”, and suspected children were posting them.

Seems to be rather upset, that I didn’t let Rosie get away with blatantly making up things such as “the occult bible”. Where do I get off, eh? I mean…occult means hidden, eh, that means secret, eh, that means nobody knows nothin’ about it and you can make up whatever you want to.

No?

Gaian — “an adherent of Gaianism — an Earth-centered (sometimes referred to as neo-Pagan) spiritual inclination with diverse and evolving religious expression whose central reference is Gaia as personification of the Earth as Mother to all life upon the planet. A Gaian typically adheres to beliefs that the Cosmos is an organic system within systems and that the Earth is a divine expression of this “being within beings.””

I’m not sure which corners of the web you are crawling in your lonely private hours of the night, but I will advise you that if you happen to be trolling bdsm chat boards and happen upon a reference to “Gaian”, it really makes no more sense for you to assume the word is bdsm-specific as it would make sense for you to assume all cat owners are “bdsm members” (as you call them) when you see a screen-name of, say, “pussyhandler8582”.
Further, your mention of “darknet” implies you have no idea what darknet is. What does it mean to “roleplay on darknet”, as you put it, and how would this be different from roleplaying on the internet where you can comment anonymously under the name of “stationary”? What compels you to engage in this roleplaying?
Then, you go on to say,
“It is perhaps true that process.org is a front for bdsm members or the less innocuous witchcraft element as the name of the blogger Loki suggests.”
You say that “It is perhaps true”, as though this asinine allegation has been presented elsewhere and you are only now just seeing that there may be truth to it, while in reality, this idea — as far as I’m aware — only has its origins in your fractured imagination, based upon your ignorance of the word “Gaian”… A word only presented in this forum as part of the screen name of another commenter like yourself. You go from attaching your own perverse definition onto another commenter’s name only to infer that this whole site may “perhaps” be a “front for bdsm members”. At this point, it may be worth asking what “bdsm” even means in your twisted mind, and how is it that a blog like this one could possibly act as a “front” for bdsm activities? Many people and many websites are openly dedicated to bdsm, to the point that nobody really needs some subtle front organization. And how could it even work to operate such a front online? Do you imagine that there are subtle hidden bdsm messages concealed within the text of process.org’s articles? Did you really think about this at all?
As for the “less innocuous witchcraft element” that the name Loki suggests to you — what do you mean by “less innocuous” and how is this suggested? Again, your amazing incompetence at doing a basic information search before jumping to conclusions is staggering. The name ‘Loki’ comes from a god of Norse mythology, the name ‘Loki’ on Process.org refers to theoretical physicist and musician Loki der Quaeler, co-editor of this site. In your apparently disturbed mind, “Loki” refers to malicious witchcraft. It seems there is simply no justification for this perception.
You then go on to say several disjointed, seemingly unconnected and pointless things:
“Anybody who thinks that owning a slave woman is desirable is a scumbag.”
Okay. No argument here. Nor did anybody suggest otherwise here.
“Gaian tried to shred Rosie’s credibility and his ability to do this went unchecked by doug.”
Was I supposed to make Rosie’s argument for her?
“Doug says that the catholics allowed abuse which they did with several priests having knowledge and transfers taking place.”
Yes. And…?
“There are wiccan and witchcraft groups. That some like to light candles and perform benign rituals doesn’t imply that sadistic groups of satanic nature haven’t been around.”
No, one can’t prove a negative. The inability to prove something doesn’t exist can’t prove that it does. This is very (VERY) basic logic.
Then you go on to reference some case without providing ANY source material:
“Even in the psychiatric arena there have been criminal busts and one in particular was a cult like group of psychotherapists that were arrested for abusing their own children one of which was 3 years old and sexually abused in group settings.”
What case is this? Who was involved? Further, what is this supposed to tell us? Was this “cult like group” part of a larger ring of Satanic Gaian Loki-ites? Where can we read about this case?
And then you end with a conciliatory: “I understand your desire to elicit the truth but even you are oblivious to sadists who patrol this site.”
The “sadists”, by which you mean the false inferences you drew merely on the basis of names?
…I really don’t know what to tell you. If your critical thinking skills are as unrefined as your comment indicates, you really don’t need to be berated by me. Your daily life must be fraught with difficulties enough.

Many years ago, academic Dr Steven Kent did a radio interview with Wayne Morris, part of the “CKLN-FM Mind Control Series”. This interview and Dr Kent’s 3 papers on the subject are very popular with the satanic ritual abuse – CIA mind control true believers crowd – almost every one of them with a webpage cites Dr Kent as part of their “proofs” for SRA being more than a sick fantasy.

BUT – not one of these people uses the words “ritual abuse” the way that Dr Kent defined them. Dr Kent said;
“Ritual abuse is any kind of systematic patterned disempowering violations. Ritual abuse can take place in a wide variety of contexts. They don’t necessarily have to be religious in nature; however, ritual abuse is systematic, patterned, disempowering violations …
In the allegations of ritual abuse that are say, outside a religious context, these kinds of abuses could involve a perpetrator who serially violates one person or one child repeatedly. In these cases the kind of violations would be patterned and the patterning can be important from the victim’s standpoint because each time the abuse begins, the victim knows what’s coming, having been through it several times before…”

Steve Kent defined “ritual abuse” as RITUALIZED abuse, i.e., “to make a ritual of” abusing a child. The patterned, repetitive nature of the abuse IS THE RITUAL, in the phrase “ritual abuse”. That is the only legitimate use of the words ritual & abuse as a phrase or term; “ritual abuse”.

Every SRA/mind control believer uses these words, in combination, incorrectly. ALL of them use the word “ritual” to mean “a religious/occult ceremony”, and “ritual abuse” to mean sexual abuse of a child while a religious ceremony is being performed. Used for this context, however, the phrase becomes totally meaningless.

Are children ever sexually abused while a religious ceremony is going on around them? Yes – if you believe the accounts of some victims of pedophile Priests, as I do, that’s undeniable. Altar boys have been sexually groped & fondled by such offenders, in such settings, for example. But calling THAT kind of occurence “ritual abuse” is nonsensical. It is the equivalent of calling sexual abuse of children that takes place in a school, “scholastic abuse”, or in the locker-room shower of a college footbal team “football abuse”. Abuse is abuse, there is no point to using the setting as an adjectival ‘descriptor’. Sexual abuse that happens while a ceremony is going on, should be called what it is – “abuse”, period.

I’d like to attempt to make a bridge between what each of you has just said, more explicit. (Please forgive me, if you think I fail in this).

Doug discusses the REALITY that; “…many people both recognize the problem of Child Abuse AND recognize stories of Satanic/Illuminati/Freemason conspiracies as products of paranoid delusion”,
and decries the “frustratingly ignorant and illogical arguments”, employed by S.M.A.R.T. and other ” ‘recovered memories’ are always valid and must never be questioned” zealots, to nullify this reality in their own and other people’s minds.

Jeanette exposes and wisely warns against an equally ignorant false logic, underlying the appeal that claiming to be a “satanic ritual abuse” generated MPD holds for some people;
“A link that we Must break is the trauma + (satanic) ritual abuse + multiple personalities = highly creative means to cope. Developing multiple personalities is Not creative and is not representative of highly intelligent people – as many researchers and therapists would have us believe”.

To be more explicit, some researchers and therapists promote the idea that “being an SRA MPD'” means the person must be an extraordinarily creative and gifted individual – a very appealing idea indeed. Some examples of this might help – here is a supposed “Disability Information Resource Centre”:

http://www.dircsa.org.au/factsheets/dissociative-identity-disorder/

claiming that; “DID/MPD ‘develops’ in childhood. It is the result of ongoing severe abuse (physical, emotional and/or sexual) or trauma. It is a HIGHLY CREATIVE survival technique that allows a child to escape…”
Note that this site specfically endorses the alleged SRA origin of MPD-DID; “Estimates of 40-60% of DID/MPD is caused by Satanic religious cults. This condition is often deliberately induced by the cult to produce compliance and amnesia”.

Another site where persons claiming to be MPD-DID are heaped with praise for making such claims, and told that allegedly being MPD-DID means they are; “extremely clever”, “brave”, “gifted” and “amazing” persons with extra-ordinary powers and abilities:

http://www.squidoo.com/dissociative-identity-disorder-did

Skeptical commentor “Justin Sanity” challenges the site owner about this, and demonstrates that such interpretations of MPD-DID imply that SEVERE CHILD ABUSE CAN BE A POSITIVE GROWTH INDUCING EXPERIENCE;

“I’m very uncomfortable with what is being expressed, here:
“…the carriers of these personalities have an amazing power…that many of us [i.e.,the average person?] cannot fathom…”
“I love to hear people say things like, “It is a power and not a disorder and it is amazing.” I hope everyone who visits this page will agree with you” – is that so?
Is it your intention, then, to communicate to your readers that persons diagnosed with DID are actually specially ‘blessed’ and/or ‘gifted’ by their DID? I hope you don’t intend to say that persons with a potentially disabling condition, believed to be overwhelmingly a result of serious child abuse, are actually blessed to have this condition & are gifted by it? You seem a caring person with good intentions, so I have to believe it is not your INTENT to suggest that serious child abuse could ever be “a blessing in disguise” or the root cause, (directly or indirectly), of any ‘giftedness’ that anyone might possess”.

“There is one other thing that I would ask you to contemplate, about how you are choosing to approach this topic & your desire to be supportive of “DID” persons. Some of your statements, particularly in response to comments, describe and promote a hierarchy of abuse experiences:
“…millions of children are abused during childhood and don’t develop DID…those who develop DID are usually subject to…SEVERE abuse…”torture”…unimaginable, horrific abuse…”
and a hierarchy of abuse survivors: DID abuse survivors being “extremely clever”, “brave”, “gifted” and “amazing” persons – IN CONTRAST TO other abused persons, who may have “drowned their lives in alcohol”, “abused themselves and others”, or “committed suicide” and therefore must have been stupid, cowardly, talentless and unremarkable – ?”

Therein lies the bridge between Doug’s and Jeanette’s insights – no matter how vociferously organizations like S.M.A.R.T. (and associated therapists & researchers) might claim to be “opposed to child abuse”, their insistence that MPD-DID would be a “highly creative way to cope with the trauma of child abuse” and therefore that THEY THEMSELVES must be “extremely clever”, “brave”, “gifted” and “amazing” persons with extra-ordinary powers & abilities, demonstrates that they are actually endorsing child abuse as a “positive growth inducing experience”.

Justin Sanity says; “there are people using “DID supportive” websites to promote the FALSE idea that child abusers can and do deliberately induce DID and other “special powers/abilities” in their victims BY ABUSING THEM in a systematic manner. That is impossible (thank goodness!), and promoting the idea that there could be “secret formulas” for using child rape and torture to generate desirable qualities in children – under the guise of “exposing abusers” – is an evil thing to do in my opinion”.