The Pattern : The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) in England and Wales has delivered its findings; again the evidence emerges.

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) in England and Wales has delivered its findings;  again the evidence emerges. There is a behavioural pattern here.

"The protection of personal and institutional reputations above the protection of children was a frequent institutional reaction. Statutory agencies were not informed, perpetrators were ‘moved on’ and there were failures by those in authority to thoroughly investigate allegations. Records about child sexual abuse allegations were not kept.

Some institutions had no child protection policies and procedures. Where policies and procedures were in existence, they were often inadequate or not complied with. Inspections of institutions were, at times, lacking. Recommendations made following internal or external reviews were infrequently implemented and sometimes ignored." source : Executive Summary Of IICSA Report.

Evidence of a pattern of behaviour observed in every country that has ever held a  public inquiry into child abuse and the response of institutional culture to the children and adult survivors reporting their abuse. I have been observing this pattern for most of my life. From early boarding school onwards.. What the evidence shows is less a matter of response and responsibility so much as reactionary protectionism.
Evidence that the culture of those who hold power over children is such that it will always seek to protect that power, status and image.  
Evidence that this culture of power will set that priority above the welfare of the children who were under their watch, the children who were harmed, who reported their abuse, and those who were silent.
If that priority stands above the social material welfare of the children, it stands over the social material welfare of our entire community.
That priority stands above the vulnerable within families and  community halls, within the Churches and Temples, within Police Stations, it stands over your local councillor and your local MP,  denial and dehumanisation is found written into so-called Sacred Texts and our News Entertainment Media, within Banks and Prisons and in many other areas of our institutional systems.

Where's our insurance policy to protect us from loss of power, loss of wealth and status?

Defend the Flag.  Protect the Power. 
Who will stand for the children, wading neck deep, against such a cold, cruel cultural tide?
We must give some serious thought as to what that really means.
"There are things that should happen in a child's life, and there are things that should not happen that do."

A child should never be exploited by anyone for sex, and when the child tries to reach out for help the child must be made safe from the predator, and child's case must be dealt with transparently, robustly to ensure future safety.
The consequences, of both the abuse and the malign cultural reaction of those in power to the abused, linger on and on, and on.
Every suicide of a neglected, abandoned child or an adult survivor is also a matter of social murder, murder by neglect. The Institutionalised neglect of duty of care.
Decades of psychological, emotional and physical distress, some of it passed through to the children of the survivors, in learned behaviour and many other ways too that cause harm to that generation. Without being resolved, the patterns and cycles of distress continue to play out. This social silence is a well of pain, and it must be drawn, and emptied.
The costs of child abuse are externalised by those who were and are in positions of trust, care and power over children. 
The lived experience costs - hundreds of thousands of distressed lives, if not millions. 
The social material costs of inadequate social and economic services support systems crisis managing that distress, only to exacerbate it.
Adults within a clearly defined structure and culture of power behave in this manner towards vulnerable distressed harmed children.

This is a cultural behavioural characteristic, not merely the malign influence of a few 'bad apples'.
This must stop. 
Today.
But here's the thing - it's not just about sexual abuse of children and vulnerable people. 
It is about the abuse of power by anyone in a position of power and dominance, and the cultural pattern of defence of that Power at all and any cost. Be it Blair or Putin, Savile or Epstein, Suella Braverman or Boris Johnson, be it Austerity or War, Fracking or maintaining poverty as a political and economic strategic necessity, the harmed are routinely ignored, their cases minimised.

What of the 204,000 deaths caused by pandemic mismanagement, the 330,000 deaths caused by the economic violence of Austerity? What of the voices, evidence, lived experience of all those closely connected to the deceased?

Child Sexual Abuse is a pattern of behaviour that tells us more about our society, our culture and our current condition than most will acknowledge. Some will try to weaponise CSA to distract, to make tribal political points.

I am saying that the abuse of children and the defence of institutional power are two defining cultural behavioural characteristic, and that culture is of one of power hierarchy, violence, wealth and warfare which currently afflict us all and it is profoundly unhealthy. 
Healthy governance requires we acknowledge this and then take intentional, determined and robust action to correct the situation.

All of us. Join the dots. Before it's yet again too late, already.




Kindest regards

Corneilius

Thank you for reading this blog.

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

This blog, like all my other content creation work is not monetised via advertising. If you like what I present, consider sharing my content. If you can afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pint of beer/ale/cider for a few months, please donate via my Patreon account.

https://patreon.com/corneilius - donations gratefully received

https://www.reverbnation.com/corneilius - .mp3 songs

https://www.soundcloud.com/coreluminous - .wav Songs

https://www.corneilius.net - Archive

#folkmusic
#singersongwriter
#blogger
#music

Child Abuse is a cultural marker across all known hierarchy or dominator cultures- Qanon is a political cultural weapon, and does nothing to protect children.

There are abusers - people who intentionally and deliberately exploit, abuse and cause harm to other people - in every political party, in every office, in every military unit, in every school, every temple.

Bullying is a standard behavioural dynamic in hierarchical situations.

Bullies in the office, predators in the Church or the Swim Club, manipulators among the family, domestic violence, abuse of power disparity, corruption and warfare are all part of the same behavioural dynamic.

And so, if we are honest then when it comes to child abuse we all know that there are abusers in many, many family homes, just as there are abusers in many institutional settings, be they left, right, centrist, secular, religious or apolitical.

So here's the honest evidence - The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated against children by people they know, often trusted people within their family network or their community. 

Stranger attack is relatively rare by comparison, and, yes it is still a genuine threat, something to be aware of  - it does happen. Child Sexual Abuse most often involves the infiltration of a circle of trust, the grooming of target and bystanders alike a standard behaviour. That uncle you all trusted, the political conman who was trusted....

Using the issue of child abuse as a partisan political weapon does not help confront the truth of abuse in general and child abuse in particular as it stands within this culture.  That is problematic.

So I choose to name the culture - Hierarchical Industrialised Militarised Competing Powers  (HIMCOP) - and I see it as a series of behaviour patterns, behavioural dynamics that become institutionalised around the need to gain and maintain power over others. I do not see it as 'natural healthy human behaviour'.

I think using CSA as a political weapon inhibits a full confrontation with the social material situation.

I have found this to be the case, from decades of confronting the abuse I endured, turning abuse in to a partisan political weapon does nothing to reduce abuse, nothing to mitigate the harm or resolve the pain.

The system of power understands that when people stop arguing, and begin to listen to one another, in order to build bridges, to deepen understanding, to learn from each others experience, then the system of power is in trouble. So they do their level best to see that we ordinary folk are set o  arguing against each other.

“If we accept that there will always be sides, it’s a nontrivial to-do list item to always be on the side of angels. Distrust essentialism. 

Keep in mind that what seems like rationality is often just rationalization, playing catch-up with subterranean forces that we never suspect.

Focus on the larger, shared goals. Practice perspective taking. Individuate, individuate, individuate. Recall the historical lessons of how often the truly malignant Thems keep themselves hidden and make third parties the fall guy.

And in the meantime, give the right-of-way to people driving cars with the “Mean people suck” bumper sticker, and remind everyone that we’re all in it together against Lord Voldemort and the House Slytherin.”

― Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

So lets look at some of the data, the evidence to discern some of the truth here.

An Epidemiological Overview of Child Sexual Abuse - 2014

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311357/ 

 "The WHO in 2002 estimated that 73 million boys and 150 million girls under the age of 18 years had experienced various forms of sexual violence.[1] 

The Center's for Disease Control and the US Department of Justice conducted a study in the US and reported prevalence of being forced to have sex at some point of time in their lives as 11% and 4% of the high-school girls and boys, respectively.[7] 

 A meta-analysis conducted in the year 2009 analyzed 65 studies in 22 countries and estimated an “overall international figure.” 

 The main findings of the study were:[7] An estimated 7.9% of males and 19.7% of females universally faced sexual abuse before the age of 18 years[7] 

The highest prevalence rate of CSA was seen in Africa (34.4%)[7,8] 

Europe, America, and Asia had prevalence rate of 9.2%, 10.1%, and 23.9%, respectively[7] 

With regards to females, seven countries reported prevalence rates as being more than one fifth i.e., 37.8% in Australia, 32.2% in Costa Rica, 31% in Tanzania, 30.7% in Israel, 28.1% in Sweden, 25.3% in the US, and 24.2% in Switzerland[7] 

The lowest rate observed for males may be imprecise to some extent because of under reporting.[7] 

The study concluded that CSA is an extensive problem and even the lowest prevalence includes a huge number of victims who still need to be considered.[7]" 

The reader can read the paper, and check each of the references for him or herself.

Egalitarian cultures do not abuse children. 

Hierarchy cultures do. 

Dominator cultures do.

Traumatised cultures do.

source : www.violence.de

It is that simple.

Only honesty and transparency can resolve this matter.

Honesty is evidence led, transparency is evidence available in the open, without bias. Everyone can see it all.

I think that using child abuse as a partisan political weapon is being dishonest - political weaponisation of CSA/CSE  is small minded and abusive - small minded in that it does not look to the whole society level situation, and abusive in that it is exploiting suffering to make a point. - Without really thinking it through, those who fall for that false gambit end up dumping all over the work of survivors and their advocates, the people who go to court, who pursue justice diligently.

Those who use CSE/CSA as a political weapon are also dumping all over the people who work with survivors to help them 'recover' and regain some semblance of safety and balance, and and dumping over the many health professionals and care workers, trainers, mid wives and others who work to prevent child abuse. 

Those who use CSA/CSE as a political weapon are exploiting the survivors, the harm caused becomes a weapon and they are inhibiting accurate and honest discourse on this subject.

Dealing with proven abusers.

Everyone who is proven be an abuser needs to be sentenced, and imprisoned, just as everyone who makes and spreads images of child abuse needs to be incarcerated, not as punishment, but as a fundamental societal  health and safety protocol.

Punishment does not prevent abuse. It's already too late by the stage of courts and convictions. It is true that incarcerated abusers are no longer able to abuse children freely. That is a  useful gain in the overall picture. But it is not grass roots prevention. It is important to consider what is needed to prevent child abuse.

 People who abuse children and exploit them are not safe for society. Period. 

 So too with War Criminals.  They are not safe for society.

Tony Blair and George Bush are personally responsible for the murder of at least 250,000 children in Iraq in 2003 -2006, and they are personally responsible for the orphaning of 4 million Iraqi children. 

How does that harm compare with the quantity of harms caused by Epstein or Savile, or any other case of celebrity abusers?   It is certain that in each case of abuse or harm, each harmed child sees little difference, the lived experience of that and it's impacts are utterly, utterly awful.

However at the societal level there is a vast difference. This is not to suggest the Saviles and Epsteins get a free pass by comparison. Comparison is needless when we remove punishment and install humane lonfg term incarceration for social safety.

If, as the allegations suggest, Epstein's operation was about entrapment and exploitation of powerful people as a political weapon, as a political whip, then it is ironic that Qanon et al use the abuse of small, defenceless children, as a political weapon. Both would be doing the same thing. 

Where is Child Sexual Abuse more common? How many more ordinary, non celebrity people rape children, most often their own, or their relatives or friends children, and are never exposed?

Neither of these questions are posed to afford celebrity abusers any excuse or mitigation. Again it's not a comparison. Those who are famous who are also proven abusers must always be exposed and safety restored by their removal and incarceration. Just as any one else.

Left/Right makes no difference: the abuse can and does happen in any political grouping or affiliation, any religious group or affiliation. 

Honesty and transparency do make a difference. 

 Accurate data and verifiable evidence do make a difference. 

Understanding the issues, the context and the evidence as a whole does make a difference.

Using the issue of abuse as a partisan political weapon does not help confront the truth of abuse as it stands within THIS culture. 

Here's a few resources on this subject.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485398/ - The relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and violence in intimate relationships

https://sweden.se/society/smacking-banned-since-1979/ - Sweden Bans smacking children

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/gender-egalitarianism-made-us-human-patriarchy-was-too-little-too-late/ - a study of  our egalitarian past

https://www.alice-miller.com/en/sexual-abuse-and-memory/- A letter to Alice Miller from a Survivor. Alice Miller studied child abuse from a cultural historical perspective.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/connect/crypower/episode8/ - Colm O'Gorman — the Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland — about his own experiences of sexual assault, the world-changing power of individual action, and the extraordinary story of how he sued the Pope.

https://www.oneinfour.org.uk/about-oneinfour/ - One in Four specializes in supporting survivors of sexual violence and abuse, and particularly survivors of child sexual abuse and trauma.

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/26542319-the-body-keeps-the-score-brain-mind-and-body-in-the-healing-of-trauma - The Body Keeps The Score - A pioneering researcher and one of the world’s foremost experts on traumatic stress offers a bold new paradigm for healing.

www.violence.de - The origins of peace and violence, this site looks at the work of James W Prescott, who with John Bowlby developed the first Attachment Theory back in teh 1960s.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/44171.Judith_Lewis_Herman - Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence-From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror

https://www.d2l.org/the-issue/statistics/- The statistics and facts below can help you understand what child sexual abuse is, the risk factors and consequences for survivors, and how to identify and report suspected abuse

 Kindest regards 

 Corneilius 

 "Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

Bullies, Power and the child-mother bonding attachment.

When we study the evolution of the human neuro-endocrine system and how it functions we discover something.

Egalitarian life was generally peaceful,  beautiful, healthy, grounded in solid attachment and mature affective state self regulation which reduced incidence of lost tempers and general violence

.

This will trigger some people within a culture where self regulation is dysregulated more often than not.

Social Behavioural Characteristics of different cultures.

 

source : www.violence.de

Societal Social Behavioural Characteristics.

Different modes of society exist, ranging from egalitarian collectives to hierarchies of power. 

Egalitarian behaviour is healthy. 

Hierarchy behaviour is unhealthy.

People bully because they learn to bully

People demonstrate love because they learn to love.

Unhealthy behaviour is not a biological norm.

Healthy behaviour is a biological norm.

That is why egalitarian cultures exist, and have always existed.  

Biology would not create a species designed to be unhealthy.

Healthy peoeple do not abuse their power disparity over others, especially not over their own children, family, partners... they will use that power disparity to nurture, care for and protect, to demonstrate healthy bonding and love as a lived experneice.

Bullies always seek as much control over the bullied as possible, to the point that it is unhealthy for both bully and the bullied.

In cultures where socio-econimic status is thing, wealth gives a person more material power to than other persons who have no wealth.  A man with a sword and a man with a stick.

Vast wealth creates a much larger power disparity. A president commands an Army, and a civilian living in the pathway of the war that army is prosecuting is utterly powerless, and must flee.

This is not healthy behaviour.

Great Wealth as an institutional agency controls populations.

States, Dictators, Kings and Queens, Presidents and Prime Ministers have access to material power - through the institutions they dominate and through alliances with Oligarchy. It is access to those that allows them to transmit and project their 'power', without them they are ordinary folk, impotent in the face of immense power.

The ordinary citizen is rendered utterly powerless by the structure.

The power disparity is close to that of parent and infant.

All of this control is to remain in a powerful position, to maitain the power disparity - it's a fractal of existential insecurity.

If I do let go it will all fall to pieces, and they will eat me alive.

The person or Institution is unwilling, unable to let go of that material capability to exercise power to retain power. Thus they resist all attempts at healing, they resist all attempts to confront their abuses, they cover up, mask, deflect, distract...

Unhealthy behaviour is not a biological norm.

Or put it the other way.

Healthy behaviour is the biological norm.

That is not to say that disease does not exist.

Which begs the question.

Why do or how do some people learn to become bullies?

Before we go on i want to place two scientifically proven understandings before you, that are uncontested, incontrovertible data.

- disrupted child-mother bonding is more common in communities that are traumatised or subjected to chronic stress, and in cultures that are violent hierarchies than it is in healthy egalitarian communities.

- example - Trump, his infancy and childhood, plus the culture of his fathers corrupt businessm within the culture of U.S. which is a hierarchy of power and violence. He is someone who is unable to regulate his emotional outbursts.

- example - The vast majority of people in prison for violent crime have experienced childhood trauma, abuse that was never resolved.

These are people whose ability or willingness to control their emotional states is profoundly damaged.

Angry, violent, abusive, manipualtive, traumatised people.

And there are many more who are not in prison, whose damage goes 'un-noticed' and yet it is the object and subject of humour in sit-coms, rom-coms, heroic war movies and there is enough of low level loss of self regulation to generate a psychotherapy industrial complex that deals with the results of the psycho-marketing industrial complex that manipulates that loss of self regulation.

Self Regulation of Emotional State.

Living in the real world, a human organism has to be able to master his or her emotional states - for example, climbing a tree to access something entails taking the risk of the climb. That risk is something to be feared, yet one needs to control the fear to do the climb safely. It's not fearlessnes, it's the ability to self regulate the emotional state in order to get things done, to avoid falling.

Allan N. Schore is an American psychologist and researcher in the field of neuropsychology. His research has focused on affective neuroscience, neuropsychiatry, trauma theory, developmental psychology, attachment theory, pediatrics, infant mental health, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and behavioral biology

What he is presenting in the video below is an over view of the scientific learning and clinical experience of the past 40 years, in this field, which is  telling us more about how human neonates and babies and infants and toddlers develop emotional self regulation, sense of self and other social keys in the first 1000 days of life, starting at conception.

In the language of neurobiology, enodcrinology, epigenetics, nurtition, physiological and psychological development as it relates to mother-child

So yes, starting from conception.

What happens at the biological level?
 
We see now that the human brain is designed to be organised by how the person (a developing foetus is a person) experiences being alive. 

Environment and experience plays a major role in brain development, more so than genetics alone.

“The brain is heavily influenced by genes. But from birth through young adulthood, the part of the human brain that most defines us (frontal cortex) is less a product of the genes with which you started life than of what life has thrown at you. Because it is the least constrained by genes and most sculpted by experience. This must be so, to be the supremely complex social species that we are. Ironically, it seems that the genetic program of human brain development has evolved to, as much as possible, free the frontal cortext from genes.” 

― Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
 
The epigenetics  (the way that portions of the parents genes are switched on or off or disrupted by their lived experience) of the parents lived experience is passed through to the child, through genetic transmission. So even without any direct experience, the child carries markers of the changed genetic coding of their parents lived experience prior to conception.

At the same time, the lived experience of the mother is the ennvironment within which the foetus and the new brain develops, given those conditions which of course vary from mother to mother, from culture to culture.  Both develop within a cultural environment, that affects both child and parent.

Thus we see that brain development being elastic, that fluidity gives the developing human brain the widest scope for learning. There is very little in behaviour that is 'programmed', most of our behaviour is learned. We write the pathways of experience as we go. Experience programs us, yet not all is hard wired, it can be modulated, attenuated.
 
Because the human brain never stops learning or growing.

Think of it as a small brain growing inside the mother, relating to the mothers brain. Learning all the time. Developing all the time. Everyday in the womb becoming ready for the next stage, which is not a from scratch state. Hearing starts at 18 weeks, which means that listening starts soon after. That is to say paying attention to the sound, with a focus.

The sounds of the mothers body, the sounds of life close by, a washing machine, a waterfall, thunder, laughter, crying... someone inside is listening, a little person is learning, developing, reacting and responding.

A baby in the womb can be soothed, as much as the baby can be disturbed. The baby can respond to the mother. A biological conversation, in the language of hormone cascades, neurological pathways plays between both mother and child.

The new-born babies recognises the mothers voice, and those of close family members, the new born feels everything any adult would feel, yet has no language. Communication is by empathy, connectedness, skin to skin.

The caring of the mother initiates further emotional development  of the child as a separate autonomous being, and her care sustains that development for as long as it takes the child to mature, healthfully. This is the bioligical mandate for healthy development.

There are key experiential inter-relational dynamics between mother and baby, and later on between any care giver and child, that are essential to nurture the development of the child's emotional maturity, at the earliest stage possible.

Biologically this makes sense. As a thought experiment, try to imagine a group living on an ice flow, or in a desert, or a rain forest having to move about with a few children throwing tantrums, screaming in rage, running off in all directions, refusing to co-operate?

It doesn't happen in healthy communities.

So here is Allan Schore, and he puts it so much clearer than I could...

Alice Miller

In 1986, Alice Miller published "For your own good :The Roots of Violence in Child Rearing"

In this work she traced the childhood of Hitler, and the childhoods of other well known 'cases' - a serial killer (Jurgen Bartsch) and a heroin addict (Christiane F) and looked at the cultural background in Europe at that time, and the history of child punishment.

She examined the early childhoods of these three subjects, and drew correlations and causative lines from those, put into the wider social material context of Christian Europe as a war like culture, where traditional parenting was authoritarian, and adult to child sanction or punishment was the norm.

Miller looked at the history of Parenting as transmitted in books, from old and ancient manuscripts to the printed press and traced a line of instruction, from Sparta (spare the rod, spoil the child)  to Vienna (Frued, and the Oedipus Complex) in 1880s, to middle class parenting books in the 1930s.

The traditional view was based around the concept of breaking the wilfulness of the child - that child willfulness was seen as the gate through which the Devil or Evil or Badness could enter and corrupt the child, and it was the parents Christian responsibility to make sure that never happened because such people could disrupt the established order. Society demanded that the parent dominate the child's will, and 'rear' the child, 'raise' the child to be a good citizen.

This is a culture where Christianity is ubiquitous, and the vast majority truly believe and are influenced by the Christian psyche.

Thus for them, to fail to 'raise' the child to be a good Christian would put the entire social order out of balance.

Freud's betrayal.

Freud, for what ever reasons, placed the dangerous element within what he assumed was the child's innate lust or competition for the opposite sex parent. It was a quality of the child. A biological norm.

He made that up, obviously. He had no science or meaningfully observed and measured data, it was merely his plagiarism of Greek Mythology projected onto a crime no one was willing to acknowledge, not even he himself, in spite of the little evidence that he did have. That crime was upper middle class  fathers sexually exploiting their own daughters.

His client base was the daughters of upper middle class families, who came to his psycho-therapy sessions and told their stories. They told him what they had experienced.

When Freud presented a paper on this, his contemporaries rejected it, and him, outright.

Freud retreated, and wrote a new  paper, which is known as The Aetiology of Hysteria, in which he put the 'blame' on the child...

Freud was doing what his culture told him to do. Loyalty, fit in, do not disturb the established order.

He followed orders. Creatively.

Alice Miller argued that the way a culture treats the children feeds into the willingness across a population to 'follow' Authoritarian leaders, not least because the unresolved anger, pain and dispair of lived experience that remains unresolved generates a pressure that is intense albeit largely unconscious, and bullies, those who seek to exercise power over others know how to tap into that to manipulate a significant part of the population, enough to control the majority...

Within this the vast majority peaople remain basically decent, albeit prone to being manipulated by demagogues.

Then a significant percentage will become bullies, at what ever

Brexit, and the age divide, the parenting divide reflects this dynamic in part.

A generation raised in War and traditional Christian values vs a generation raised in relative peace and secular values grounded in Human Rights.

It's a part of the dynamic, not it's whole.

Blaming the victim is a core aspect of the division to conquer dynamic.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

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

Thank you for reading this blog. All we need to do is be really honest, responsive to the evidence we find,and ready to reassess when new evidence emerges. The rest is easy.