What You Should Know about Organized (“Satanic”) Ritual Abuse

This article was published at Disinfo.com, which has now vanished from the worldwide web without explanation, hence I am re-posting it here.

  • After 25 years researching so-called “Satanic Ritual Abuse” (on and off and part of a much wider inquiry, but still), I was recently stunned to find out that the idea there is no hard evidence, no proof, is entirely false. SRA is not even remotely like the UFO. There is charred earth everywhere.
  • Apparently, one primary reason most people dismiss the subject is because of the connection with Satanism. Our modern materialist bent “instinctively” (unthinkingly) rejects anything that smacks of mysticism or religiosity as not being credible. Add to this the strong association with mobs of hysterical, moralistic Christians, and a subject that was already highly unappetizing can all-too-easily be deemed “beyond the pale.”
  • In this regard it’s curious to note that the recent Disinfo article advocating Satanism as a “benevolent” religion also insisted that Satanic credos were 100% scientific and rationalist. There is ample reason to believe that the “satanic” aspects to organized ritual abuse are at least partially included as a deliberate strategy to discredit victims’ claims, by tarring them with a “mystical” and “fantastic” taint. If so, the strategy has been diabolically effective.
  • The notion that ritual abuse of children (which is often associated with Satanic imagery and ideology) can all be explained by mass hysteria, “Satanic panic,” and “false memory syndrome” is now widely believed. It has even been recently promoted—unconvincingly—in a piece of obvious Hollywood propaganda called Repression, starring Ethan Hawke. This belief is “supported” by (and supports) the equally erroneous belief that no evidence has ever been found for ritual child abuse. The truth is that the evidence is quite overwhelming, but that it has been almost entirely buried by a counter-narrative, generated by mainstream media. Phrases such as “No proof,” “Just a rumor,” and “Satanic panic” work like a mantra which the majority of people pick up and, after hearing it and repeating it for long enough, end up believing.
  • If we compare claims of ritualized sexual abuse to claims of alien/ET contact, it’s clear that the latter are both considerably more popular as entertainment and more widely represented in the so-called alternative media. Somewhat incredibly, they are even taken more seriously in semi-intellectual circles (you will not see a John Mack or Jeffrey Kripal advocating an inquiry into ritual abuse). Yet, while claims of alien contact are outlandish by just about every criteria, claims of ritualized sexual abuse are a central, if much ignored, part of human history.
  • Lloydde Mause’s statistics indicate that the sexual abuse of children (independent of any allegation of ritualistic elements or government programs) may be as high as 50% in the US and, by extension, the western world. (It is not likely to be any better in the rest of the world.) De Mause also believes that things are better now than at any time in history. If this is even half true, it means one or both of two things: most people do not talk about their experiences; many people do not even remember them. It also means far more individuals are complicit with these crimes than many of us can imagine. De Mause has also written about “satanic” ritual abuse and provided a credible argument for its prevalence, one that does not require a “worldwide conspiracy” but only a consistency of human psychological reactions to extreme trauma. For example: “[Ritual abusers] weren’t following a worldwide conspiracy; most of them were just neighborhood sadists torturing kids for sexual pleasure, people who never read a book on Satanism in their lives. Yet they all spontaneously follow a ritual whose elements and even details are the same. . . . They seemed to me to be acting out a very specific drama. What could such a bizarre collection of acts mean? Cult abuse, like all sadistic acts, individual or group, is a sexual perversion whose purpose is achieving orgasm by means of a defense against severe fears of disintegration and engulfment.”
  • Relatively few children claim to have memories of alien abductions, as compared to adults. On the other hand, countless children do make claims of being sexually abused, and frequently within an organized, ritualistic context, without any need for hypnosis to bring out their memories. The idea that they are being coaxed to invent these stories (as in the recent Hampstead case) has become increasingly common; but it should be asked, which is easier (more palatable) for most people to believe? More importantly perhaps, why would children make up these stories? Would not doing so itself require extremely adverse conditions that are not being addressed?
  • Simply put, while the existence of organized abuse that is kept hidden, suppressed, and is often pushed into unconsciousness, could account for “Satanic panic,” as well as (possibly) alien abduction memories and all manner of other “delusions,” the reverse is simply not the case. “Satanic panic” can’t explain away these stories, because it leaves unaddressed the original cause of the delusional and hysterical behavior. Only severely traumatized people are prey to such extreme delusions; and yet, it is severe trauma that is being reported. Hence we have effects without cause.
  • Of course everyone has a tendency to believe one way or another. Yet I would say that the tendency to disbelieve claims of widespread and systematized child abuse,including those associated with intelligence programs and/or occult ritualistic practices (which I think are often the same) is easy enough to understand. Denial is likely to go pretty deep when the alternative is to begin to recognize that the society we live in is essentially a breeding and feeding ground for sexual predators.This is a profoundly painful and destabilizing process, especially for anyone who has children of their own. People in the US seem to have so far kept their illusions about this relatively intact, unlike in the UK, where the revelations have continued to come hard and fast, ever since the death of Jimmy Savile.
  • So what about the inclination in some of us to want to believe that this is true?This is less easy to understand, unless we allow for some sort of experience of these realities to begin with. There is nothing reassuring about believing these accounts—unless, that is, a person has lived a life struggling to keep memories of equivalent (even if less extreme)experiences out of awareness, having grown up in an environment in which it was not safe, or even possible, to speak about such things. While I don’t think I was a victim of organized ritual abuse, this was almost certainly my own experience.
  • From my own experientially informed point of view, anyone who denies entirely the veracity of accounts of organized, ritualized sexual abuse of children (i.e., who suggests that they can all be chalked up to “delusions” and false memories), is either a) lying; b) uninformed; c) rigidly opposed to the possibility for unconscious, emotional reasons; or d) a combination of all three.
  • Since I have been writing and speaking of my own experiences over the past year or so, while still lacking any clear-cut memories of severe or systematic abuse, I have encountered more and more people who claim to have been sexually abused as children (and in more than one case ritually). This suggests that such victims (as well as the perpetrators) are indeed everywhere among us, in fact, that they are us. But until a person feels safe enough to speak, or even think, about this subject, most people will push the experience out of awareness as much as possible. This may even be to the point of never really thinking about it; or perhaps, not remembering it.
  • In my own experience, it is in keeping with extreme trauma for a person to recount early experiences that clearly indicate an element of abuse, sexual or otherwise, and in the next breath to say that “Nothing happened,” or “It didn’t affect me at all.” Fragmentation and dissociation can be deduced from how a person remembers events and yet, at the same time, attaches no significance to them. For the record, I am not suggesting these memories should be dug up, much less by using hypnosis. I am merely stating what I have come to see as an unpalatable truth.
  • Returning to the question of evidence of organized ritual abuse, what follows is a passage taken from the Child Abuse wiki site, which I recommend to anyone who is sincerely interested in the subject, and unable to simply dismiss it unexamined. They will also find extensive citations to these passages.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the existence of ritual abuse crimes as a worldwide phenomenon. Bottoms, Shaver and Goodman found in their 1993 study evaluating ritual abuse claims that in 2,292 alleged ritual abuse cases, 15% of the perpetrators in adult cases and 30% of the perpetrators in child cases confessed to the abuse.. “In a survey of 2,709 members of the American Psychological Association, it was found that 30 percent of these professionals had seen cases of ritual or religion-related abuse (Bottoms, Shaver & Goodman, 1991). Of those psychologists who have seen cases of ritual abuse, 93 percent believed that the reported harm took place and 93 percent believed that the alleged ritualism occurred….The similar research of Nancy Perry (1992) which further supports (the previous findings)…Perry also conducted a national survey of therapists who work with clients with dissociative disorders and she found that 88 percent of the 1,185 respondents indicated ”belief in ritual abuse, involving mind control and programming.”

Recently an online surveyof over one thousand people answered questions about ritual abuse and extreme abuse crimes. In a summary of the survey, it was found that ritual abuse/mind control is a global phenomenon. Fifty-five percent stated they were abused in a Satanic cult. Seventy-seven percent of the adult survivors that responded “had been threatened with death if they ever talked about the abuse.” Also, “257 respondents reported that secret mind control experiments were used on them as children.” Eighty-two percent reported being sexually abused by multiple perpetrators.

Anne Johnson Davis in her book Hell Minus One reported that her parents confessed to her abuse in writing and verbally to clergymen, and to the detectives from the Utah Attorney General’s Office. Her suppressed memories started when she was in her mid-30s, which were fully substantiated by her mother and stepfather.

Many scientific journals articles have discussed the reality of ritual abuse and its effect on its victims. Some of these articles have discussed the extreme nature of these crimes, proof of the reality of the ritual abuse phenomenon and victims’ symptoms,[1] the connection between ritual abuse, multiple personality disorder and mind control and the connections between ritual abuse reports and the higher levels of symptoms of childhood sexual and physical abuse. Several additional studies and organizations have compiled research on the reality of ritual abuse crimes.

Ritual abuse occurrences have also been found in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A ritual abuse case in the United States in 2006 had a confession and convictions. From Daily Telegraph, “Satanist paedophile ring ‘ritually rapedup to 25 children’, by Tom Leonard in Ponchatoula, 6/3/05:

“In a case that has horrified Americans way beyond the Bible Belt, Louis Lamonica Jnr and eight members the Hosanna Church are accused of being members of a Satanic paedophile ring who ritually raped up to 25 children, as well as performing animal sacrifices. Police say some of those charged – who include Lamonica’s wife and a deputy sheriff – have already admitted devil worship inside the now defunct church on the outskirts of Ponchatoula, the parish’s main town. The discovery of badly rubbed-out pentagrams on the floor and eight boxes of hooded black costumes —allegedly used both in the abuse and in ‘morality tales’ performed to prepare the young victims—bear out some of the claims. . . . Lamonica himself astonished police by walking into a neighbouring sheriff’s office a few weeks ago and confessing out of the blue that over five years he and other church members had sexually abused boys and girls aged between one and 16 and taught them to have sex with each other, as well as with a dog. Lamonica, 45, said he had drunk cat’s blood and poured it over the bodies of his young victims, some of whom were the abusers’ children. Local police say his claims have been confirmed by some of the victims, of whom half a dozen have so far been interviewed, and by some of the fellow abusers, whose names Lamonica freely gave to police.”

Stephen Kent, Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, believes that inter-generational satanic accounts are possible and that rituals related to them may come from a deviant interpretation of religious texts.

Once again, the amount of documented evidence of organized ritual abuse, even for someone like myself who never had a problem believing in its reality, is astounding. It is time for those people who have disbelieved, and who thoughtlessly repeat the mainstream mantra of “Satanic panic” and “No proof,” to give a hard look at this evidence. Ignoring it has already had a massive negative impact upon thousands upon thousands of survivors—some of whom we may personally know and never even suspect it.

The non-explanatory explanation of “Satanic panic” is so effective because it itself requires no proof, and no further extrapolation. It essentially argues that, since crimes of organized ritual abuse are impossible, all reports, allegations, and even confessions, can be dismissed as hysteria. Yet there is as much evidence for ritualized abuse as for any number of other crimes, crimes which go entirely unquestioned because, if there is victim testimony, corroborative evidence, and a confession, we generally consider the case to be closed. So why the special standard and unusually high degree of “skepticism” and denial around organized ritual abuse?

What I have deduced is chilling in its simplicity: The very extremity of organized ritual abuse provides a “natural” cover for it. Such crimes are unthinkable to most people, for one reason or another (though apparently not to Christians). But if we are unable to think about something, how can we expect to reach any reasonable conclusion about it?


[1]  Cozolino, L.J.; Shaffer, R.E (Fall 1992) “Adults who report childhood ritualistic abuse.” Special Issue: Satanic ritual abuse: The current state of knowledge. Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3) “Skeptics question the legitimacy of these reports, but many factors point to the reality of the phenomenon of ritualistic abuse. First of all, the degree of consistency between reports of individuals from different parts of the country is very high. The fact that children as young as 2 and 3 report ritualistic abuse experiences that mirror those reported by adult victims is especially striking in light of the fact that young children do not have access to the kind of printed information that might conceivably allow an older person to fabricate such experiences (Gould, 1987). Second, experiences of ritualistic abuse reported by victims of all ages are virtually identical to written historical accounts of Satan worship and the like (Hill & Goodwin, 1989; Russell, 1972), findings that substantiate our present-day understanding of Satanism and ritualistic abuse as intragenerational phenomenon. Third, the symptoms from which individuals reporting histories of ritualistic abuse tend to suffer are consistent with our current understanding of post-traumatic stress disorder and the dissociative disorders. The progression in which ritualistic abuse survivors respond to psychotherapy places these victims squarely within the category of individual who have suffered real-not imagined-trauma.” [Emphasis added]

40 thoughts on “What You Should Know about Organized (“Satanic”) Ritual Abuse

  1. You need to be having this conversation with Richard Bartholomew over at his place. The problem with focusing on the few cases that have a “ritual” component is that it feeds into notions of Satanic Conspiracies of the sort that Alex Jones deals in, and gets Child Protective Services all upset and removing children from parents over their less than Orthodox religious beliefs. It gets the Buckeys and McMartins a long stay in federal detention with a child abuse rap around their necks. No one is trying to trivialize child abuse, save those invested in a conspiratorial model. Its a case of applying Occam’s Razor, “That theory which tends least to the multiplication of metaphysical entities has the greatest probability of being correct”. I put it to you that Satan is a metaphysical entity and that therefore any theory PRECLUDING any metaphysical entities at all has a greater probability of being correct. Saying “cuz the Devil” doesn’t impress any but the most credulous dolts and Pentecostals. Or are you saying “Satanists but no Satan” at which point you might as well say”depraved individuals” and not bring up the particulars. Focusing on some perceived “occult” aspect to an individual case can lead the ignorant masses to radical conclusions. Its as though they were were focusing on the Jewish aspect or the Albanian aspect. Its why at least some people try to downplay the national aspect of some of the actually real “grooming gangs”. Not to excuse or deny but to say “Well, yes they were all Pakistanis, but one shouldn’t therefore jump to conclusions about all Pakistanis”. See where I’m going with this? Cobbling on the “Satanic Ritual” bit does nothing for the “Abuse” argument except muddy it up with a lot of stuff that actual scholars will tell you, it has nothing to do with, and were dismissing by the mid-80’s as urban myth. There’s plenty of people arrested for the sexual abuse of minors. What percentage of them were engaged in some sort of occult practice and how does that compare to child abusers as a whole and to their percentage of the population as a whole? Vanishingly small, you say? And yet the media hyped it up for cheap ratings? Color me surprised.

    • this is a very general, even blanket argument, that doesn’t really address any specific points in the piece. But as it stands, I don’t agree with it. The satanic element IMO is included in these sorts of organized abuse as part of a cultural psyop meant to both terrify and obsess the susceptible and appear absurd to the less-susceptible and cause them to dismiss the testimonies out of hand. That it is also sometimes included because practitioners believe in Satan or at least in metaphysical principles for energy manipulation or harvesting is I think also indisputable and therefore relevant, tho it’s not essential to the argument this piece is making, at all.

      Who are these actual scholars you refer to? Ross Cheit? Sara Scott? David Sakheim?

  2. These are my memories. I had no psycho therapy or interest in the subject until one night, the memories started.

    https://merovee.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/nothing-has-been-proved/

    You would probably know of one of the schools and maybe the other.

    I won’t go into too many details. But once the shock and pain was gone through, I was left with the question ‘Were they real’. You could enlarge this to how much of life is real but that’s another question.

    But what I would say is that in the areas of both schools at the time, there were well documented events and ‘connections’ that suggest there is truth to the memories.

    Which takes in Manson, L Ron Hubbard, Moon landing, death of Brian Jones, JFK, Harold MacMillan, Royal Family, ANC, and death of Sarah Payne, and Soham. And other strange connections.

    But as I say ‘Nothing Has Been Proved’.

    • Thanks for sharing your experiences. I guess you did not want to name the schools? You can contact me privately if you want to share more.

      • Jason

        The reason I didn’t want to name them is because I cannot say for definite my memories are true. From my perspective I couldn’t think of anything worse than being accused of such acts if they had never happened.

        But many events are linked by ‘two degrees of separation. Too many to be a coincidence and I’m 95% sure my memories are valid.

        And you come to the question ‘why’. It’s more than a bunch of weirdos getting their rocks off. And I believe ties into consciousness in some way.

        The other point is that I have memories of involvement by medical practitioners is a good term. I think we’re looking at MK Ultra type procedures. Wiping memories, etc. I can’t remember faces apart from one who was a High Priestess. ‘Doppelganger’ of a well known Hollywood actress.

        I think it’s probably ‘Deep State’. I can’t believe the schools could keep it out of awareness of the security services.

        How do I contact you ? I’m OK with it now apart from ‘Not knowing’ for sure but it may help you connect a few dots.

  3. I think what DMC seems to be explicitly saying is that somehow an epistemelogical tool like the over used “Occam’s Razor” ( which does not refer as such to spiritual entities at all, but merely cautions against over complexifying hypotheses) somehow means that any crime committed against a backdrop of a mythical or semi-mythical character is a priori not really happening. Since Satan does not exist, Satanic rites are imaginary.

  4. Jasun,

    Your reporting here is quite timely for me in what you once noted as my Captain Ahabian quest for the Great White Levenda. Right now, there is much discussion about demonology on the several Faceborgian groups devoted to UFOs and ETs with the focus on Tom deLonge’s To the Stars juggernaut.

    I would like to go on all those groups and link to your article here — however, I feel that I need more context from you about the “embedding” or is it “engulfment” of SRA within the wider field of UFOlogy, first with the easy “low hanging fruit” focus on alien abductions with their concomitant sexual abuse narratives.

    I am intrigued by your statement that children will report SRA while adults report more about alien abuse in a UFO. Do you believe that what the adults reports as alien abduction abuse are distorted memories of childhood sexual abuse be in Satanic or not?

    Furthermore I would ask you to clarify the “meme” of “Satanic”. To me, as soon as you say the word “Satanic,” you immediately and even totalistically evoke CHRISTIAN demonology. Yet I view the demonology inherent in Tom deLonge’s world view to be a PRE-CHRISTIAN one.

    Let me explain: Tom DeLonge was brought up by a mother who was a devout Fundamentalist Christian. She tried to impose those beliefs on her son, but Tom defined himself in rebellion against that maternal imposition. However, he’s still a good “Mama’s Boy,” so he salvages that after all relationship by opting for a demonology that rejects the Christian Satan and replaces it by the PRE-CHRISTIAN gods and demons of — well, why else did he choose Peter Levenda to chart that ancient of days demonology through HP Lovecraft, Aleister Crowley and their worship of the hosts of Sumerian/Babylonian deities?

    3 Quasi-Biblical quotes for the occasion:
    [1] “Thou art Simon and upon this Necronomicon, I shall build my Church!”
    [2] “To the Stars, Alice!”
    [3] “Feed my Cthulhus!”

    Nick Redfern has written a recent blogpost about it, based on his own book of 10 years ago about the so called “Collins Elite” — the sinister group of Fundy Christians in the military ranks of both the UK and the USA who believe that SATAN is behind all UFO phenomena.

    https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/10/when-government-agencies-take-note-of-books-on-the-paranormal/

    • Do you believe that what the adults reports as alien abduction abuse are distorted memories of childhood sexual abuse be in Satanic or not?

      This is covered amply in part two of Prisoner of Infinity; yes is the short answer, though there is surely a spectrum ranging from “MILAB” alien abduction theater to something much more metaphyscial that may or may not involve nonhuman beings (Jinn or faery or whathaveyou). Also not all AA experiences are sexual in nature.

      Furthermore I would ask you to clarify the “meme” of “Satanic”.

      I am working on a piece currently that will address this. Watch this space (not the skies) 😉

  5. Strange, each time I read this blog I move an inch closer to thinking “Eyes Wide Shut” is a documentary disguised as a work of fiction.

    Chilling stuff, not least the fog that straddles the line between true memory and imagination. As I see from other posters and from my own life, so much is unknowable–even if it happened directly to you.

    • I was thinking about Eyes Wide Shut, and Alice in Wonderland coupled with what appears to be mind control pseudo religious cults trying to produce modern oracles, shamans, and vehicles for the gods.

  6. Kubrick was a genuine Artist with a complex, painstaking, carefully-constructed method for communicating dangerous heresies; heretical Artists have been hiding deeper messages (or their identities) for centuries. “Ludicrous” is a relative term; and would you argue with perfect authority that, say, Trump or Soros *don’t* have “ludicrous” … and possibly evil… sex lives? Of all the lenses through which to critique a work of Art, why go for the normative? Isn’t that how all “out there” information is demonized/ neutralized/ quarantined… with emotional appeals to some imagined “norm”? Ritualized orgies organized for powerfully corrupt men may or may not be ludicrous, but are you arguing that A) they never happen or that B) EWS can’t be viewed as an allegory? I find the very last minutes of EWS horrifying… the punch it packs is folded under the surface” or “obvious” narrative. Kubrick, who, within his films, trains the careful viewer how to read his films, was no fool or fakir.

    I’ve just read your “Age of Advanced Incoherence,” btw, and found it brilliant.

    • You can read some of my thoughts on EWS at this old forum thread here: https://forum.auticulture.com/viewtopic.php?p=13#p13

      I am certainly not arguing for A, as this post should make clear, tho that they ever happen in the way depicted in EWS I am fairly confident in assuming.

      For me, EWS packs no punch whatsoever unless it be to my aesthetic receptors, upon which I find it a cruel assault from beginning to end. This isn’t to dismiss the film; it is certainly some kind of cinematic anomaly and no, I agree it can’t be reduced to some sort of normative judgment because SK was not a normal artist (or IMO an artist at all, in the normal sense).

      I do not personally believe SK was communicating “dangerous heresies” in any of his films, tho I do think he was interested in generating controversy, which isn’t the same thing.

      I never completed my Kubrickon hyper-thesis, tho I am working on it again currently (on and off)

      • Most of Kubrick’s oeuvre was about the age-old abuse of Power and the blatant hypocrisy of Power’s hereditary representatives: the Ruling Class is his general target. One of the layers built into, eg The Shining, addressed the irony of the mass “fright” appeal of so-called “horror movies” of a supernatural nature when American history was a hundred times more grisly/frightening than any ghosts could ever be…

        https://berlin8berlin.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/kubrick-the-future-and-his-blackest-comedy/

        SK was a supreme postmodernist operating on a Meta level aimed at a future audience… it takes some digging to get it. But so does Nabokov’s oeuvre!

        • SK was a supreme postmodernist operating on a Meta level aimed at a future audience… it takes some digging to get it. But so does Nabokov’s oeuvre!

          I would agree with this, if not the apparent admiration with which it’s said. These men are insiders, not outsiders.
          Have you watched The Lolita Riddle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wmn1S8MXho

          • Will have a look!

            Just to say, quickly: Vlad was a “useful idiot” during the Vietnam phase of the Cold War; his connection to power was cousin Nick, who was directly connected to the CIA’s hijacking of Modernism. Like lots of Artists, he was naive on the topic of geopolitics. Kubrick wasn’t naive and he wasn’t “useful”… he was an oddity to the political top-layer (just like Cassavetes was and Godard too: artsy weirdos with little influence) and his message went, largely, over their heads… until, possibly, the Internet blew the whistle on him…?

          • Okay… have watched the clip! The Shirley Temple stuff is shamelessly pre-Hays Code pedo (I think the era was a strange and horrible one for kids), but the Nabokov tie-in is fairly thin. The death-by-car-accident-deus-ex-machina is a standard trope… the “342” parallel is interesting but only happens once on the Shirley Temple side of the equation. Also: authorial intention can be 180-degrees of the reader’s interpretation. In other words, even if the Temple/Lolita overlaps are real, how does that indict Nabokov? Is attacking pedophilia in Hollywood the same as indulging it? I remember OWS “activists” attacking the ghost of John Lennon over his song “Woman is the N___ of the World,” because of “N___” … which is as unfair/perverse a reading of critical Art as you can get.

            Anyway: I don’t want to bury your page in tangents. I’d rather talk about *your* radical writings. which I remember finding quite a while ago. To be honest I was *horrified* by your brother’s work/image, then pleasantly surprised by your work…

  7. “For me, EWS packs no punch whatsoever…”

    On the Meta layer (which is the allegory floating on the “banal reality” of the narrative surface) of EWS, at the very end, it’s very strongly implied that the daughter of Bill and Alice is taken, from the “toy” store, by men seen earlier in the film. There are also Meta-clues that Alice is complicit and that Bill is being initiated. On this Meta level, the very last line of the film could very will mean: we’ll need to make another child, now. The eternal continuation of the groomed child-to-consumer-sex-object cycle.

    Kubrick teaches you early on to keep an eye on continuity “errors”. A plausible theory is that only Kubrick was aware of the encoded Meta-layer (which took years to map out) and that his famously “100 takes!” was about giving him space to sneak in the continuity “errors” and generally make it hard for anyone but Kubrick to keep track of certain subliminal placements/ call-backs. Moving furniture; disappearing/reappearing newspapers and house plants; changing typewriters… you really think chess playing super-anal Kubrick, who designed the very boxes he stored his materials in, to fractions of a millimeter… wasn’t on top of all that? Kubrick was in charge of everything… even the posters. Kubrick even specified how 2001:A Space Odyssey was to be shown in cinemas: the film’s music starts something like a minute, against a black screen, before the official film starts, as the audience is still taking their seats to look at the horizontal “monolith” of the black cinema screen itself… (the monolith is shown, near the end, in space, rotating through various orientations, among them the horizontal, no?)…

    Of course he often dissembled in interviews… nobody who puts such a herculean intellectual effort into building meta-layers into otherwise-“mainstream” movies is going to give the game away to the NYT or whatever. He had a grand vision and managed to pull it off and he even out-chess-championed clever Nabokov, who didn’t realize that Kubrick was sending him, and his possible proclivities, up, on screen, in Lolita (Sellers in the “Enchanted Hunters stage play” scene is a ringer for Vlad). Who but an Elizabethan-grade magician of crypto-narrative could sneak a graphic reference to the opportunistic homosexuality of barracks life, in a popular war film of the macho 1980s, and get away with it? Who but a supreme postmodernist would cross-reference Lolita with The Shining by including footage of James Mason, “in real life,” accompanied by girls subliminally reminiscent of “the (Shining) twins,” on the set of The Shining, in a making-of documentary (supposedly directed by Vivian: I often wonder if Stanley made the mistake of letting Vivian in on the secret, leading to their famous rupture)?

    The storytelling genius responsible for all this is not super-human, it’s just surpassingly rare, because most people are too sloppy, lazy and unmethodically unambitious to go to the “extreme” lengths Kubrick went to realize his vision.

    Look at the issue of “the Droeshout Portrtait” engraving of “Shakespeare”: centuries before Stanley Kubrick walked the Earth, Artists were already at it… encoding painstaking secrets for future close-readers to uncover. Power has always been The Enemy (before it was human it was saber-toothed tigers, et al) and Artists have always been engaged in the struggle. Without the power to command armies, our only power has always been secrecy/stealth. Every generation of dissident visionaries nurtures the rebellious among the generations that come after… an ongoing historical record that reminds us that the mainstream narrative is bullshit: Those in Power do not love us. Kubrick takes his place beside Marlowe/ Bacon (or whatever committee of radicals that Shakespeare-the-yokel fronted).

    https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Rollett.Doublet.pdf

    • The myth of the solitary maverick super-genius? This myth is central to the ongoing psyop of Western culture including, or especially, its latest iteration of Hollywood, of which SK is the undisputed Lord and Master.

      The idea of a subversive creative genius working independently within a State-created and maintained superstructure on million-dollar state of the art works that require the highest levels of endorsement and support and that have massive cultural and social influence is suggestive to me of how deep this postmodern brainwash goes, alas.

      Simply put, if SK or VN were really subverting anything, why would they have been promoted as legendary culture makers by the very same cultural apparatus they were allegedly subverting? And, on the other side of the screen, where’s the evidence that these works have subverted or done anything but further the CIA-Hollywood psyop of culture?

      You’re right, this is a bit of a tangent, but as I say central to work-in-progress The Kubrickon.

  8. “Simply put, if SK or VN were really subverting anything, why would they have been promoted as legendary culture makers by the very same cultural apparatus they were allegedly subverting?”

    VN subverted nothing; SK went over their heads. Well, until the crowd-sourced Think Tank of the Internet busted him…

    “The myth of the solitary maverick super-genius?”

    Nah. “Genius” will do it.

    • you have a much lower estimation of the sophistication of the adversary than I. Or possibly a higher estimation of your own.

      I always presume myself to be many steps behind the social engineers.

      What if the crowd-sourced Think Tank of the Internet did not “bust” SK but played into his (i.e., Their) hands?

      • “you have a much lower estimation of the sophistication of the adversary than I”

        The Adversary is verging on Invincible at this moment; the last chance we had of a viable “revolution” was probably the 18th century… and they’e plugged a lot of those holes (not only that: the weapon gap between Serf and Lord was minimal back then; now it’s asymptotic). They have hired the finest amoral intellects (straight outta Harvard, Yale, Oxbridge, Cornell etc) that money can corrupt. That doesn’t/didn’t make them (pre-Internet) Omniscient.

        Tracking and infiltrating the Panthers is one thing… but figuring out that 2001: A Space Odyssey is an act of cultural subversion? You give them too much credit in the wrong department. I’m not smarter than Hegemony, I benefited from the crowd-sourcing Think Tank of the Internet and therefore probably became aware of what SK was up to a little while after TFIC (the fuckers in charge) finally did. Which still wouldn’t have predated Full Metal Jacket. SK got away with it for a good many years, IMO.

        • Again, I am not convinced. That SK was better at psy-war than the whole psy-war dept? I dunno, sounds to me like the exact sort of fairy-tale that Hollywood cornered the market on; ironically the same sort of fairy-tale SK was claiming to subvert. Yet Clockwork Orange is so far from a subversive movie that it could have been made by the CIA; I say it was, just as 2001 was made by NASA and Fight Club was made by Starbucks. (Fincher & Nolan are the heirs to Kubrick’s crown as much as PT Anderson.)

          • “That SK was better at psy-war than the whole psy-war dept?”

            Psywar is a control mechanism. Kubrick films aren’t a control mechanism. Psywar requires a total, relentless, uninterrupted field of overwhelmingly saturation-effects to turn human thoughts into an aggregate national or demographic crystal of dumb-fuck simple. Art Films are blips for weird intellectuals to ponder off and on, quietly, over the years, regarding the pre-control core of the Human Condition and a possible path back to it. The difference is profound.

          • “Yet Clockwork Orange is so far from a subversive movie that it could have been made by the CIA; I say it was, just as 2001 was made by NASA and Fight Club was made by Starbucks.”

            Well, no point in going around and around on all this but you’re talking about the surface levels of those Kubrick films; you’re just skimming the top. And Nolan and Fincher? Ha. Not remotely in the same league. You can’t be super-conversant with Film Art or narrative aesthetics and put those hamfisted-but-talented, deeply middlebrow, Spielberg-dark hacks in a class with SK.

            In any case: thanks very much for the chat, Sir, and I’ll continue to read your articles with interest….

            And I apologize unreservedly for gumming up this comment thread!

            SA

          • Well, no point in going around and around on all this but you’re talking about the surface levels of those Kubrick films; you’re just skimming the top. And Nolan and Fincher? Ha. Not remotely in the same league. You can’t be super-conversant with Film Art or narrative aesthetics and put those hamfisted-but-talented, deeply middlebrow, Spielberg-dark hacks in a class with SK.

            I wondered how long before we would hear the familiar voice of the Kubrickon: the cult that has a thousand mouths but only one refrain.

  9. Oh shit. You guys are doing Kubrick in here.

    I think he was just the most disgruntled employee of all time.
    Well, second most .. if you count Lucifer.

    • mm yes I may need to import this over to the EWS post if it continues …

      Another myth, this time Promethean. But Lucifer was cast out, and Prometheus was chained…. Stanley was crowned and enthroned.

      • “Stanley was crowned and enthroned”

        Only to the extent that David Bowie was; ie: not really. Harvey Weinstein had more power in his rancid ______ than all of the phases of Kubrick combined. Che Guevara is an enduring symbol, too. Means very little. There isn’t much cross-over from the realm of “Cultural Icons” to the Masters of War, though many Icons (a la Bourdain) make great Kapos and Pets.

        • IMO you underestimate how essential myth-making is to the maintenance and extension of gross/temporal power. It predates it, and those who shape the myths, define the narratives and hence how power is distributed, or so it seems to me. Douglas Valentine is instructive on this subject.

          And central to the propagation of useful myths is the notion of the maverick genius behind them. It goes back to Homer, who didn’t exist (and maybe Shakespeare too, who you also refer to as possible composite character).

          • “IMO you underestimate how essential myth-making is to the maintenance and extension of gross/temporal power.”

            Not so, good Sir! What is The Dollar but a Myth? But I believe that Geniuses have existed, do exist, and will continue to exist! But the subversive ones were a lot more likely to slip through the filter, and toward public awareness, before, say, the screw-tightenings of the late late 20th century.

            I mean, Mick Jagger is neither subversive nor a genius but he managed to get a song about menstruation (and resultant “blue balls”) into the pop charts during the early 1960s, when words like “damn” were regularly censored and a “period” was beyond the pale, no? Things slip through. And Evil examples, of a category of things, don’t preclude the non-Evil variations.

      • As a result of this heinous sin (Kubrick’s autobiographical movie puzzle) against God (THEY/THEM), Lucifer (Kubrick) was banished from living in heaven (Hollywood)

        (Isaiah 14:12)

        ? Okay, I’m done 🙂

  10. PS

    “how deep this postmodern brainwash goes”

    When I use the term “postmodern” I’m referring to a specific set of convention-flouting literary effects (a la Coover, Gardner, Brodkey)… not the recent social engineering mindfuck that has people parroting the nonsense that being a Woman is a state of mind, and all that

    • it’s tricky, for sure, but I suspect there’s a continuum, i.e., by the fruit shall ye know the roots; but then I am not sure Christianity can be blamed for the Inquisition. You seem more familiar with this area than I am, since I don’t recognize those names (I do know Chancey Gardner).

Leave a Comment