M'I-5'Persecutio n ' ab use in set-up situa tions and in publi c
fim...@bigfoot.com
-= abuse in set-up situations and. in public -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Strangers in the street have recognized me. on sight many times, and shown
awareness of the current. thread of abuse. To give you one example, in 1992
I was seriously ill, and a manager at work. somewhat humorously said that
"it wasn't fair" that people were bullying me. A. few days later, I attended
for the first. time a clinic in London as an outpatient, and on my way out
was accosted by. someone who asked if "they had paid my fare", with emphasis
on the word "fare". He repeated the word several. times in this different
context;. that they should have paid my "fare", each time emphasizing the
word.
For two and a half years from. the time their harassment started until
November 1992 I refused. to see a psychiatrist, because I reasoned that I
was not ill of my own action or fault, but through. the stress caused by
harassment, and that a lessening of the illness would have. to be consequent
to a removal of its immediate cause,. in other words a cessation of
harassment. I also reasoned that since they. were taunting me with jokes
about. mental illness, if I were to seek treatment then the abusers would
think that they had "won" and been. proved "right". Remember, the constant
theme of any persecution is, "we must destroy. you because you're X",
whether X is a racial or other attribute. In this case the. X was "we
persecute you because you have brain disease".. The similarity of this logic
to Nazi. attitudes to the mentally ill is striking.
The same manager who'd said "it wasn't. fair" asked me in winter 1992 why I
didn't seek help from a psychiatrist; was it,. he asked, because "they would
think. they had won" if I sought treatment? That was something I'd never
said at. work... again, taken separately it proves nothing, but many such
things over a. period of months proves conclusively that people in the
company knew what was. going on, and in quite a lot of detail.
Usually harassment in. public lacks the level of finesse of "paying your
fare". Most. people's imagination does not go beyond moronic parroting of
the current term of. denigration. That is not surprising given the average
level of the abusers;. if they do not have the intelligence to distinguish
wrong from right then neither will. they have the capacity for anything
other than mindless repetition of a. monosyllabic term calculated to fit
into. their minds.
The first incidents of verbal assault in public. were in again in the summer
of. 1990, although they increased in frequency and venom with time. In July
1990 the first public incident occurred. on a tube train on the Northern
line. Two men. and their girlfriends recognised me; the women sprang to my
defence, saying "He looks perfectly normal, he doesn't look ill".. Their
boyfriends of course knew better, and followed the party. line; one of them
made reference to an "operation", apparently to work at the tube. station
but implicitly to a visit that I had made. to hospital a couple of weeks
previously.
In August 1990 going home from college, soon after. getting on a tube train
at Gloucester Road I was. followed by a group of four youths, who started a
chant of abuse. That they were. targeting me was confirmed by other people
in the carriage, one of whom asked the other "who are they going on at,. is
it the bloke who. just got on?" to which the second replied "yes, I think
so". I was tempted to. reply, but as in every other instance the abusers are
enabled in their cowardice by physically outnumbering the. abused; any
confrontation would result in my being beaten up, followed by. a complaint
to the police that "he attacked us", and of course he's ill, so he. must
have. been imagining that we were getting at him. Shitty, aren't they?
But the shittiness of the four youths on the tube train is as. nothing
compared to the episode on the National Express coach to Dover. in the
summer of. 1992. While going on holiday to the Continent I was verbally set
upon. by a couple travelling sitting a few rows behind. The boy did the
talking,. his female companion contributing only a continuous empty giggling
noise. He spoke loudly to ensure other people on the coach. heard, always
about "they" and "this bloke" but never naming either the abusers or. the
person he was talking about.. He said "they" had "found somebody from his
school, and he was always really stressed at school". They. must have dug
deep to find enemies there; perhaps someone who dropped. out of school,
someone who didn't do too well later, who was jealous. and keen to get their
own back? The boy also said "he was. in a bed and breakfast for only one
night and they got him". By a not unexpected coincidence I had been in. a
B&B in Oxford. a week previously, which had been booked from work; other
things lead me to. the conclusion that the company's offices were bugged for
most. of the 2 1/2 years that I was there, so "they" would have known a room
in the B&B had been. booked. (But I'll bet "they" didn't tell the company's
managers. their offices were bugged, did they?).
After a few minutes of this I went back to where they were sitting. and
asked. where they were travelling. The boy named a village in France, and
the girl's giggling suddenly ceased; presumably it permeated to her. brain
cell what the. purpose of the boy's abuse was.
This and other set-up situations are obviously calculated. to provoke a
direct confrontation which. would bring in the police, with the abusers
claiming that they were the ones attacked. Again in 1992, outside. the
house where I was living in Oxford I was physically. attacked by someone -
not punched, just grabbed by the. coat, with some verbals thrown in for good
measure. That was something the. people at work shouldn't have known
about... but soon after a couple of people were. talking right in front of
me about, "I heard he was attacked". The UK police have. a responsibility
for preventing assault occurring, but they do not. seem to take any interest
in meeting that responsibility. I suppose their. attitude is that harassment
does not come. within their remit unless it involves physical assault, and
they will only become involved once that. happens. That is of course quite
the wrong attitude for them to take, but as I now understand, the. police
investigate only the crime they wish to investigate; if. they do not take
your complaints seriously then there is nothing you can do. to make them
take. action.
3321
fim...@bigfoot.com
a capture as you...
The more they point out weakness in my person, the more they authorise my
cause.
You say that I am a heretic. Is that lawful? And if you do not fear that men
do justice, do you not fear that God does justice?
You will feel the force of the truth, and you will yield to it...
There is something supernatural in such a blindness. Digna necessitas.231
Mentiris impudentissime.232
Doctrina sua noscetur vir...[233]
False piety, a double sin.
I am alone against thirty thousand. No. Protect you, the court; protect,
you, deception; let me protect the truth. It is all my strength. If I lose
it, I am undone. I shall not lack accusations, and persecutions. But I
possess the truth, and we shall see who will take it away.
I do not need to defend religion, but you do not need to defend error and
injustice. Let God, out of His compassion, having no regard to the evil
which is in me, and having regard to the good which is in you, grant us all
grace that truth may not be overcome in my hands, and that falsehood...
922. Probable.--Let us see if we seek God sincerely, by comparison of the
things which we love. It is probable that this food will not poison me. It
is probable that I shall not lose my action by not prosecuting it...
923. It is not absolution only which remits sins by the sacrament of
penance, but contrition, which is not real if it does not seek
fim...@bigfoot.com
contrary passages are reconciled. It is not enough to have one which suits
many concurring passages; but it is necessary to have one which reconciles
even contradictory passages.
Every author has a meaning in which all the contradictory passages agree, or
he has no meaning at all. We cannot affirm the latter of Scripture and the
prophets; they undoubtedly are full of good sense. We must, then, seek for a
meaning which reconciles all discrepancies.
The true meaning, then, is not that of the Jews; but in Jesus Christ all the
contradictions are reconciled.
The Jews could not reconcile the cessation of the royalty and principality,
foretold by Hosea, with the prophecy of Jacob.
If we take the law, the sacrifices, and the kingdom as realities, we cannot
reconcile all the passages. They must then necessarily be only types. We
cannot even reconcile the passages of the same author, nor of the same book,
nor sometimes of the same chapter, which indicates copiously what was the
meaning of the author. As when Ezekiel, chap. 20., Says that man will not
live by the commandments of God and will live by them.
685. Types.--If the law and the sacrifices are the truth, it must please
God, and must not displease Him. If they are types, they must be both
pleasing and displeasing.
Now in all the Scripture they are both pleasing and displeasing. It is said
that the law shall be changed; that the sacrifice shall be changed; that
they shall be without law, without a prince, and without a sacrifice; that a
new covenant shall be made; that the law shall be renewed; that the precepts
which they have received are not good; that their sacrifices are abominable;
that God has demanded none of them.
It is said, on the contrary, that the law shall abide for ever; that this
covenant shall be for ever; that sac