Wrong Word : "Oi Paedo!"

Paedophile : is a technical term, and piece of misleading use of language.

More correct would be 'manipulative or violent (child/minor) focused sex attacker': irrespective of who is being attacked, the choice to attack, to manipulate, to predate upon the other, is always, always equally evil.

This choice is made  possible only when the other, the person is transformed into an object, is de-humanised.

‘OI!  PEADO!” - the unsubstantiated internet.gossip allegations being promoted with some vigour ....

This is human evil….. and the beginnings of yet more human evil, ‘oi peado!’, followed by an assault, based on what evidence?

"..... don't like the look of that individual!"? "I heard that...."? "It's on the internet!"

(as opposed to "I found direct links to proven evidence that stands up on the internet, and then I checked them....")

One might comment that those people that enjoy or seek pleasure in violence, manipulation or predation are more evil than those who perhaps behaving thus because they ‘are doing a job’.  Soldiers?  Vigilantes? Prison Officers? Police?

The Stanford Prison Experiment - The Power of the Situation to de-humanise ...

Is the line between either of these definitions really real? Does the person on the receiving end care more which side of the line their attacker is on?

Dehumanisation can also find expression in the way an agenda driven analysis might attribute negative qualities to chosen opponents, perceived ‘enemies’, as a way of undermining how others perceive them..

I don't think this is something we can leave to just one sector of Society.

This 'issue' affects us ALL! In real terms, in the lived experience.

The issue, as I see it, is not just one set of actions, by one particular group of people, but an entire spectrum of behaviours that are almost Institutionalised in full, in the social structures that have emerged from the current Dominant Statist Culture.

They might appear to be many individual states, yet there are only states, no 'nations' in the distinct sense of an aboriginal 'nation'. There is a trans national myth of social organisation that seeks infinite expansion in a finite world.

All of these sets of relationships, personal and Institutional, have been adversely  influenced by the Power, (which David Smail calls 'distal power' - power beyond the average person’s ability to affect) so that a majority of living relationships end up becoming Power Relationships.

Assault and sexual exploitation of children, or the murder of civilians, including children, by military, the willingness to really heavily harm another, or to kill to get one's perceived needs met,  as acted out by individuals or groups or Institutions.... these are extremes of that spectrum .....  of power relationships – as opposed to empathic relationships, a spectrum that ranges from close intimacy to the collective interactions that are expressed in healthy psychologically social, cultural, and organisational behaviours.

The other end of the spectrum of Power Relationships is, for me at this time, describable in a speculative manner, as a kind of starting point description:

So here goes: behaviour that may be the expression of social and experiential distress, and that has an adverse affect on others only because it appears or presents as petty bickering, jealousy, sullen-ness, sulk, mind-games, sexism, thoughtlessness and whole host of other variations on psychological distress languaging.  The person is unhappy. And needs support and help, appropriate attention.

In between we have a range of permitted behaviour that is expressed all too clearly in our history texts, our newspapers, our entertainments, notably, war, invasion, infinite growth empire/economies, militarised police FORCE, and 'non-permitted' yet fairly widespread organised violent crime (which in some cases is linked to wars pursued by Institutions of State), gang wars, organised group violence of any kind, domestic abuse, bullying.... it's all linked. Some is ‘good’ Some is ‘bad’.

IT’S ALL HARMFUL. EXTREMELY HARMFUL!

I think that to address one serious area of this harming dynamic one has to commit to  addressing the holistic image, the whole picture of a Dominant Culture in psychological distress  - to also see how this 'fits in' in a cultural sense.

This means to me that when I can fully humanise the victimiser, to fully humanise the survivor, not to excuse anything, certainly not to mitigate the trauma and what followed, and humanise what that MEANT to the survivor, the person who was victimised,  and to fully understand these events and what may have lead to them, in order to securely find a societal pathway to prevent further victimisation. This is not a single issue.

 Wherever it occurs. Starting with myself.

Let me address the behaviour, and see the human being as human, through broken, damaged and dangerous; part of my family.

One I must stop from any further damaging behaviour.

Can I see the 'enemy' as a human being, and not a monster. It makes it easier, I think, to look at the behaviour, to look at the experiences of people and assess what one finds, honestly.

It doesn't diminish the horror, the revulsion, the sheer visceral anger and shock we all naturally feel, up close to such behaviour - until we are de-humanised : that is what military training tries to do, certainly in terms of the 'enemy'. Veterans appear to 'get over it', mostly.

It doesn't mean not being angry, not feeling the rage, suppression. for me, it means choosing not to cause harm whilst feeling the anger, the rage, the frustration.

Fully conscious. Fully aware, Alive.

For me, this is all about the David Icke, Rense, Jones stable of publishing that hypes the horror, insinuates and alleges, and present no credible attributable sourced EVIDENCE for their claims,and worse, they rarely speak of the world of child development, trauma studies, intergenerational behaviour patterning, the study of the development of empathy and it's biological functioning, which it appears is our natural optimal.

Why?

Surely if there's proven evidence, then the two go together: if one is committed to resolving the issue.

The Institutionalisation of Power Relationships across Society, from violent abusers in 'care homes', 'prisons', 'schools', the office  bully, to warring states, the disruption of the child mother bonding essential to the development of empathy, as a socio-cultural structures is a crucial matter.

Address that and the rest will flow from there.

This is not to be taken to mean mitigating the needs of those being victimised or of Survivors. The two go hand in hand.

The latter being the more immediate need.

There is time then to deal with the former matter in depth, over time.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe