Wednesday, August 19, 2009

O Watchman, clean those glasses (Cathy O'Brien's outrageous empty accusations)

In one of my posts about the Bohemian Grove I touched briefly on Scott Johnson's acceptance of the allegations by one Cathy O'Brien against many government leaders in her book, Trance: Formation of America. I decided to see if I could find out more so I went to You Tube and found a speech she gave divided into seven parts. I managed to get through five and a half at this point. If after posting this I listen to the rest and it substantially changes my view of things I'll be back to correct anything I say here that needs correction.

What's amazing about these videos is how much of absolutely nothing she actually says. She just rambles on and on in an abstract way about generalities. A lot of theoretical hoo ha about how the mind supposedly works, how mind control is possible with really nothing at all to show that she actually experienced anything of the sort. She speaks of all the "abuse" she experienced without giving a single fact you could pin it to.

Perhaps the biggest giveaway that this woman is mentally deranged is that her naming of names includes only BIG name politicians. No assistants or secretaries or second-stringers for her, no mere grunts in the service of the One World Order, they are all well known public figures she identifies as her acquaintances and tormenters. Why should such top-level people involve themselves with a mere guinea pig in some experiment, which is of course what she claims to have been. Why are there no names of subordinates at all?

If she actually heard George Romney talk about using mind control methods in global education (part 4), surely such a speech should be publicly available. Why doesn't she reference it? Or was this a private meeting in which he spoke only to a few special chosen such as herself?

Without identifying a single policy of Robert C. Byrd's she broadly claims
"He has made sure that more and more states' rights are lost. He manipulated the Constitution,"
but gives not a single quote, and makes not the slightest attempt to explain why she brings him up.

It's just a hodgepodge, in fact basically nothing more than a word salad of half-baked pseudoscience plus accusations against name after name, skipping from one to another with no point to any of it.
"The different criminal operations that I was forced to participate in during the Reagan-Bush administration are detailed in our book Trance Formation of America. That information was compiled for Congress as testimony."
Wouldn't you think a fact or two might nevertheless be forthcoming in a speech of such length as this one to support such an outrageous accusation as "criminal operations"?
"I've known Dick Cheney through Gerald Ford since 1975. He is the most brutal person I've ever encountered personally by far, but it's his attitude and his agenda that is so frightening." (part 6).
Wow, she gets away with that sort of general statement without the slightest attempt to back it up, and then she just goes rambling on to the next subject. And people take this woman seriously!
"I've known Bill Clinton since 1979 when he was governor of Arkansas ... through some CIA blackops ...cocaine operations going through Arkansas."
As with all her references to public figures in this part of the speech the information goes nowhere. She tosses out an allegation, really nothing more than namedropping, giving no more information than is already public knowledge, and passes on to something else.
"Schwarzenegger wants to change the Constitution to make it possible for himself to run for President. He's a good friend of Bush's."
Again, completely irrelevant information. No point to it, no context. Just throwing names out to smear them all with vague hints at terrible complicities in who knows what. She just skips from one thing to another. Again, it seems to be merely name-dropping.

She also heard "Bill Bennett" talk about this and that, worked with him she says.

Where are the people she accuses? Isn't it normal to expect that the accused be heard? Well, probably she's so obviously off center that nobody thinks she's worth answering. But at least shouldn't there be some whistleblowers against such craziness?

Or if they're her friends shouldn't they offer a word in her behalf?

Isn't it normal to expect that a FACT OR TWO be produced in support of an allegation of such terrible things as she imputes to various men? (And women, even Hillary Clinton apparently). DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE IS ANY MORE?

You can even see her struggling for what to say next at times as she loses her thread of thought. She seems to count on being able to produce some sort of gobbledygook and she does indeed manage to do that but there are times when she looks a bit frightened that she doesn't know what to say next, but then she comes up with some more word salad and all is fine again. I think this must be because it's mostly made up, it's not from knowledge or even memory at all.

That anyone takes this stuff seriously is the tragedy here. This woman is seriously deluded. I think there is a medical category for her particular kind of derangement. "Delusions of grandeur" came to mind. Google led me to "megalomania" and "delusions of persecution." The entry at Wikipedia is being questioned but it is at least descriptive of what I was trying to get at. It's not a mental disorder in itself although it may be part of a psychosis.

The amazing thing is that anyone sat through over an hour's worth of her delusional ramblings, that anybody takes her seriously at all.

The Watchmen who have set themselves to expose frauds and delusions in these last days should be working to expose THIS sort of fraud instead of falling for such pernicious nonsense hook, line and sinker.

Unfortunately she's a very sad case and probably was abused. A few others doubt her testimony but apparently think she and her husband are doing it for money. My impression is that she's doing it for more psychological reasons. And for all I know there's a GRAIN of truth in some of her testimony but there is simply no way to find out because she's so untrustworthy a witness. In any case, her testimony is so far from reliable you have to start with protecting the victims of her accusations.

No comments: