Publishing a site such as the Outlaw brings with it a certain responsibility, not only to it’s readers and those who comment here, but also to the people who wish to remain anonymous and have contacted the site looking for answers to any number of questions.
Of course, it would be physically impossible for anyone to be able to answer questions in a manner that would satisfy everybody, but whenever I can, I always endeavor to steer people towards more knowledgeable folk, or credible agencies who are able to help with queries that I cannot adequately deal with.
Sometimes though, when the same question is being asked by a number of people, I will usually try to formulate a response, by way of a published article on the Outlaw, such as the one you are about to read.
One of the questions I have been asked the most lately, and not only on this site but by way of private messages on social media, and which appears to be troubling a lot of people at the present time is;
Now, I am not going to claim that I am able to offer a definitive answer by any means, but as it’s a question that has been asked by so many people, it’s not something that I can comfortably ignore.
It would have helped, of course to have been furnished with some background as to why this question would be asked, or in what context the query has arisen …. but in the absence of said background, I shall assume that’s it’s more of a generalized question and is not related to any specific event or named person.
There can be any number of reasons why anyone would purposely spread disinformation or falsehoods online, and I will use as only one example of many, many more, the recent re-emergence of people who are desperately trying to push the belief that ‘Satanic Ritual Abuse’ is a cast iron reality, despite the clear lack of evidence that would be needed to support such a theory.
For the record, I have not met with, or have had contact with a single genuine survivor of abuse who supports the idea that SRA exists, ever, and many survivors are in fact, very angry that this issue is being pushed in such an aggressive way online, that it has effectively drowned out the voices of genuine survivors.
The mass media hasn’t helped with this at all, as it has simply tarred all survivors with the same brush, perhaps as a means to discredit the genuine accounts from gaining any real traction?
Claims of SRA have emerged every decade or so, and had it’s heyday in the 1980s when there appeared to have been a worldwide epidemic of alleged incidences of SRA – which may have arisen from law enforcement agencies’ system-wide failure to prosecute the sexual abuse of children up to and during the 1970s.
Or, it could have been due to the methods in which child abuse was reported being updated, and in America the Department of Justice had a great deal of success in prosecuting the purveyors of Child pornography after finally stepping up to the plate by the 1980s after years of lobbying by campaigners.
Whatever the reason may be, and over the last couple of years, increasingly lurid and truly shocking SRA narratives have emerged, and the number of allegations have increased exponentially.
So why is it happening, who is responsible, and what is the objective?
In regard to the people responsible, it could be as simple as the reporting of lurid, and unspeakably horrible tales always attract an audience, and as with any audience, the opportunity to cash in will present itself, inasmuch as the more traffic a website receives, if that website is also ‘monetized’ …. then the motive becomes only too obvious.
But what about those people who do not appear to have a financial incentive, what is their motivation?
In order to answer that, I believe that it’s important to look at the people themselves, and at what could be interpreted as the ‘righteous zeal’ that often accompanies their online (and offline) behavior.
The greater majority of these people are without a doubt, ‘believers’, and will continue to believe in everything they are saying and doing regardless of the repercussions, the possible consequences or the implausibility of their claims.
I do not believe, however, that these ‘beliefs’ simply appeared to them one day, that they woke up one morning and decided to set out on some kind of divine mission to covert anyone who would listen, into believing as they do – I am of the firm opinion that what they now believe, was put in their heads, and purposely so.
How is that possible?
When you look a little closer at some these people, it is quite easy to work out that they all fit within a certain demographic; they are very similar in a number of ways, and one of those ways is that they all display certain characteristics …. traits, if you prefer, that are not immediately obvious to those who do not possess manipulative tendencies bordering on the sociopathic, or happen to be malignant narcissists.
People who are desperate for attention, who really want to fit in or belong to something, are possibly vulnerable in some way, and who may also have some underlying or obvious mental health issues and spent most of their lives being socially isolated for example, are ideal targets for sociopaths and narcissists, who are themselves quite expert at seeking out such people, and by their very nature will then use them to their own ends.
I am not talking about the organ grinders here, the string-pullers and the so-called ‘big hitters’ of the alternative media like Icke, Gerrish, Spivey and the like, as their agenda’s are screamingly obvious to all, or should be by now at least – the people I am going to highlight here are the ‘hangers on’ , who follow them and breathe in every word they say and treat it as some sort of quasi-religious experience.
The late Richard Webster described it perfectly when he wrote:
‘Although some observers might feel that the kind of righteousness described here is at odds with the indifference to the truth which Taylor appears sometimes to have shown, to think in this manner is to fail to understand what might be called ‘the psychology of righteousness’. For throughout human history the pattern of conduct displayed by those people who seem to be motivated by a burning conviction in the rightness of a particular cause has been disturbing. Again and again it becomes apparent that those whose consciousness is dominated by feelings of righteousness, appear to be psychologically incapable of weighing the moral significance of individual acts according to any calculus, other than one derived from their own most passionate beliefs. Indeed, feelings of righteousness sometimes play such a role in an individual’s self-image that they overpower ordinary moral sensitivity. Such feelings make it psychologically difficult to acknowledge even the possibility that any action taken in pursuit of an aim which is considered right could conceivably be bad or immoral.’
My own thoughts on this are that a person of the ‘type’ I outlined above, and who desperately wants, and needs to fit in and be a part of something which is infinitely more attractive and exciting than anything that has happened in their own lives thus far …. are very, very easy to manipulate.
Whenever I see these disparate groups promoting these type of stories, and the way they defend both their own and each other’s behavior, it puts me in mind of something that I spent some time studying almost forty years ago, and makes more sense to me in regard to this than almost anything else I have been able to find online.
A group of Jack The Ripper enthusiasts were discussing the ubiquitous ‘Royal Killer’ theory in 1979, where the subject of John Netley ‘The Phantom Coachman’ came up, and the group looked at every possible reason why such a nondescript little man, a complete ‘Nobody’ and petty criminal, could have been persuaded to perform what were some pretty gruesome tasks.
Netley, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, was the man who was named by the Author Stephen Knight as being the man who lured the victims of Jack The Ripper into a coach he was asked to drive, which contained (allegedly) both the Ripper (Queen Victoria’s personal physician) and an accomplice.
Netley was sworn to obedience, according to Knight, by being made to believe (by the Freemasons) that he was being asked to perform a ‘Great Task’, his participation was vital and would benefit not only the whole population, but the Crown itself was under threat if he refused.
He genuinely believed, out of the thousands of other coach drivers that operated in London in 1888, that he had been specifically ‘chosen to undertake a special task which was a matter of National Security.’
For a man like Netley, who had been scraping a living at the very bottom of the social scale his entire life, and who had desperately wanted, with every fibre of his being, to be accepted, even welcomed into the very society he had watched for many years with envious eyes – the decision was easy.
He did it ….
Even though Mr Knights version of the Ripper story has long been discounted as a work of fiction, and John Netley probably never even existed, the basic premise is sound, inasmuch as anyone like Netley, who hovers around the type of people he admires and aspires to be accepted by, is easy prey to the manipulators and morally bankrupt types who operate within the higher end of both the alternative, and to a degree, the mass media.
And that is even before you begin to consider other agencies who operate on behalf of the establishment, using similar tactics to ‘plant stories’, spread false information and effectively muddy the waters online to distract, confuse and redirect attention elsewhere.
Something to consider perhaps?
Oh! And in case you were were wondering what happened to Mr Netley?
He was killed after being run over by his own carriage, less than a week after the last victim of Jack The Ripper, Mary Kelly, was discovered.
The coroners verdict was one of ‘Accidental Death’….