#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums
Go Ask Alice - What really went on in Wonderland
  • 1
  • 2


06-05-2015, 09:54 AM #1
RiderOfKarma
***
Marshall
Status: Offline Posts:303 Likes Received:30
An article on Alice in Wonderland, and the plethora of essays on the work. Interesting, and some of the insights may be helpful in the future when spotting MKultra signs.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/0...large-lane

Quote:"There is, of course, one zone of Carroll’s life that, to modern sensibilities, looks more bizarre than anything in Wonderland, and where, for once, he was blind to his own excesses. This is the province of his “child-friends,” as he called them—young females, whom he encountered and corralled at every turn, especially on vacations or train trips. He had a routine, described by Douglas-Fairhurst: “Carroll would strike up a conversation with a family, bring out the games and puzzles he kept in his little black travelling bag, and follow up their meeting by sending the child a signed copy of an Alice book.” The chumminess would proceed from here, with each stage marked by a request:

If you should decide on sending over Gertrude and not coming yourself, would you kindly let me know what is the minimum amount of dress in which you are willing to have her taken?

The most remarkable aspect of this letter, written in 1876, is not that he was asking the mother of Gertrude Chataway whether he could photograph her daughter—preferably naked, in what he calls “Eve’s original dress”—but that Mrs. Chataway did not think the question remarkable. Four months later, Carroll repeated it, with a twist:

I have a little friend here, Lily Gray, child of Dr. Gray, and one of my chief beach friends at Sandown this year. She is 5, a graceful and pretty child, and one of the sweetest children I know (nearly as sweet as Gertrude)—and she is so perfectly simple and unconscious that it is a matter of entire indifference to her whether she is taken in full dress or nothing. My question is, are you going to allow Gertrude (who I think is also perfectly simple and unconscious) to be done in the same way?

It is impossible to read this now without horror. The politesse, the pointing up of sweetness, and the ascribing of “entire indifference” to the child evoke the classic stratagems of the p***phile, planning his campaign and convincing others (and, more important, himself) that he is doing no wrong—that there is no victim but merely a willing collaborator. After Carroll wrote his great poem “The Hunting of the Snark,” in 1876, the daughter of the illustrator became another friend. Her name was Winifred Holiday, and she recalled, “When he stayed with us he used to steal on the sly into my room after supper, and tell me strange impromptu stories as I sat on his knee in my nightie.”

Had Carroll lived today, and had such accounts been made public, he would have been either jailed or (a fate more infernal, for someone who treasured his privacy) hounded by an unforgiving press. The wish, we tell ourselves, is father of the deed; on the other hand, what was Carroll’s wish? If buried, it lay very deep beneath his outer crust. As Douglas-Fairhurst calmly states, “It is far easier to condemn Carroll than it is to decide exactly what he should be accused of.” There was no suggestion of physical abuse, and he himself thundered against any hint of impropriety, deeming even an expurgated Shakespeare to be unfit for junior readers. (He planned his own edition, just for girls: “I have a dream of Bowdlerising Bowdler.”) For us, the thunder is a giveaway, rumbling with guilt, but the fact remains that, in his time, Carroll both exemplified and enhanced what Douglas-Fairhurst calls “a more general trend towards seeing childhood as a separate realm.” If it was inconceivable, in genteel circles, that Carroll could present a carnal threat, that was not because he was a clergyman, or the writer of cherished books, but because children could never be objects of desire. Far from being adults in bud, they were fenced off, in a garden of unknowing, and that is why parents were content to let Carroll, himself an innocent, wander in and browse. Freud’s “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality,” including one on “Infantile Sexuality,” were published in 1905. Carroll, mercifully, had died seven years earlier."
This post was last modified: 06-05-2015, 01:14 PM by RiderOfKarma.
The following 3 users Like RiderOfKarma's post:
  • littlexkittenx, Trenton, Thy Unveiling

06-08-2015, 05:21 AM #2
Smooch
**
Knight
Status: Offline Posts:65 Likes Received:133
(06-05-2015, 09:54 AM)RiderOfKarma Wrote:  An article on Alice in Wonderland, and the plethora of essays on the work. Interesting, and some of the insights may be helpful in the future when spotting MKultra signs.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/0...large-lane

Quote:"There is, of course, one zone of Carroll’s life that, to modern sensibilities, looks more bizarre than anything in Wonderland, and where, for once, he was blind to his own excesses. This is the province of his “child-friends,” as he called them—young females, whom he encountered and corralled at every turn, especially on vacations or train trips. He had a routine, described by Douglas-Fairhurst: “Carroll would strike up a conversation with a family, bring out the games and puzzles he kept in his little black travelling bag, and follow up their meeting by sending the child a signed copy of an Alice book.” The chumminess would proceed from here, with each stage marked by a request:

If you should decide on sending over Gertrude and not coming yourself, would you kindly let me know what is the minimum amount of dress in which you are willing to have her taken?

The most remarkable aspect of this letter, written in 1876, is not that he was asking the mother of Gertrude Chataway whether he could photograph her daughter—preferably naked, in what he calls “Eve’s original dress”—but that Mrs. Chataway did not think the question remarkable. Four months later, Carroll repeated it, with a twist:

I have a little friend here, Lily Gray, child of Dr. Gray, and one of my chief beach friends at Sandown this year. She is 5, a graceful and pretty child, and one of the sweetest children I know (nearly as sweet as Gertrude)—and she is so perfectly simple and unconscious that it is a matter of entire indifference to her whether she is taken in full dress or nothing. My question is, are you going to allow Gertrude (who I think is also perfectly simple and unconscious) to be done in the same way?

It is impossible to read this now without horror. The politesse, the pointing up of sweetness, and the ascribing of “entire indifference” to the child evoke the classic stratagems of the p***phile, planning his campaign and convincing others (and, more important, himself) that he is doing no wrong—that there is no victim but merely a willing collaborator. After Carroll wrote his great poem “The Hunting of the Snark,” in 1876, the daughter of the illustrator became another friend. Her name was Winifred Holiday, and she recalled, “When he stayed with us he used to steal on the sly into my room after supper, and tell me strange impromptu stories as I sat on his knee in my nightie.”

Had Carroll lived today, and had such accounts been made public, he would have been either jailed or (a fate more infernal, for someone who treasured his privacy) hounded by an unforgiving press. The wish, we tell ourselves, is father of the deed; on the other hand, what was Carroll’s wish? If buried, it lay very deep beneath his outer crust. As Douglas-Fairhurst calmly states, “It is far easier to condemn Carroll than it is to decide exactly what he should be accused of.” There was no suggestion of physical abuse, and he himself thundered against any hint of impropriety, deeming even an expurgated Shakespeare to be unfit for junior readers. (He planned his own edition, just for girls: “I have a dream of Bowdlerising Bowdler.”) For us, the thunder is a giveaway, rumbling with guilt, but the fact remains that, in his time, Carroll both exemplified and enhanced what Douglas-Fairhurst calls “a more general trend towards seeing childhood as a separate realm.” If it was inconceivable, in genteel circles, that Carroll could present a carnal threat, that was not because he was a clergyman, or the writer of cherished books, but because children could never be objects of desire. Far from being adults in bud, they were fenced off, in a garden of unknowing, and that is why parents were content to let Carroll, himself an innocent, wander in and browse. Freud’s “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality,” including one on “Infantile Sexuality,” were published in 1905. Carroll, mercifully, had died seven years earlier."

This makes me think of the recent Dugger scandal.  While watching/reading the different media go back and forth over what actually happened, what can be gleaned from official reports is there were 5 victims, whose genitals were touched (over the clothes so the abuser says) as they were unconscious with one victim as young as 5yrs.  The abuser is the brother of 4 of these victims, including the 5yr old. The abuse happened on at lease 3 separate occasions while he was an adolescent under 18yrs.

My mother, a deeply fundamentalist (and almost cultist) religious nut cannot see anything wrong with the perversion having said to me, "He was a young man wanting to find out about girls.  My cousins tried stuff on me all the time."

Without betraying my own issues, I will only say this;  when people are deeply glamored by whatever has stolen their mind and soul, they refuse to believe what is right in front of them.  In the case of Carroll, that glamor is a drug addled p***phile whose work, to this day, is used to wash the minds of the impressionable masses.

"The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate."
The following 4 users Like Smooch's post:
  • littlexkittenx, , Trenton, Thy Unveiling

09-30-2015, 09:08 PM #3
Thy Unveiling
*****
Chaplain
Status: Offline Posts:2,662 Likes Received:5903
Hm. Curiouser and curiouser...

"Be the change you want to see in the world"

There's only one true judge and that's God; so chill and let Our Father do His job
The following 2 users Like Thy Unveiling's post:
  • Cookie_Monster,

10-01-2015, 05:04 AM #4
Robert Baird
****
Justiciar
Status: Offline Posts:914 Likes Received:282
If Lewis Carroll was a weirdo it was because of other things. It was a common thing to do nude studies at the time among artists. Despite the Victorian era being prudish there was more tolerance for many things including homosexuality such as Oscar Wilde was able to carry off handsomely. Did you know Sir Francis Bacon and many of his era (probably Shakespeare) were bi-sexual? Again what is androgyny and how did ancients know what is now (only recently) being proven about many sexes (six distinct and geometrical variations thereof)?

The mathematics of Carroll may have lead people down a real rabbit hole. I was once told about a group of people as large as 2,000,000 who inter-dimensionally travelled and spent most of their time in the other realms - see Monroe OOBE thread.

His book Curiosa Mathematica might take you there.
http://forum.world-mysteries.com/threads...nal-Travel


http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resou...#p***phile

"Q: Was Carroll a p***phile?

A: No. He certainly liked little girls very much, and loved to entertain them and be in their presence. However, there is no evidence at all that he was sexually attracted to them. When his child-friends grew up, they told only positive stories about their warm friendship, and often the friendship continued during their adulthood.

Contrary to popular belief, Carroll did not only have child-friends. He also had lots of (female) adult friends. Nor is it true that he disliked little boys.

Carroll was an avid photographer and besides his normal portraits, he did sometimes photograph children in the nude. However, in his time making nude photographs of children wasn’t uncommon. All Victorian artists did studies of child-nudes; it was a trendy subject for the time. Carroll only took these photographs with permission from the children’s mothers, and only if the children were completely at ease with it. He made sure that after his death those pictures were destroyed or returned to the children to prevent them from getting embarrassed."
This post was last modified: 10-01-2015, 05:05 AM by Robert Baird.
The following 2 users Like Robert Baird's post:
  • Sal, Trenton

A better day Show this Post
10-07-2015, 07:12 PM #5
A better day Unregistered
 
Mr. Baird, they used the excuse of "nature" study as a euphemism.

Update 10/9/15 22:45
Some videos about the disturbing Lewis Carroll. Angry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQmDOn0ZlUk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irlpvtwu1Rs

WARNING: explicit graphic, proves the point that Carroll/Dobson was a pedo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL14UOuUiNA 1888, Lewis Carroll was called out for his photos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL14UOuUiNA

10-07-2015, 11:55 PM #6
Robert Baird
****
Justiciar
Status: Offline Posts:914 Likes Received:282
If you are talking about latent sexual issues we would have to address the FACT that there are six distinct sexes. We would have to guess and speculate about Lewis - and I prefer not to disparage without a modicum of reason.


(10-07-2015, 07:12 PM)A better day Wrote:  Mr. Baird, they used the excuse of "nature" study as a euphemism.
The following 1 user Likes Robert Baird's post:
  • Sal

10-08-2015, 01:21 PM #7
Elf
*
Squire
Status: Offline Posts:24 Likes Received:57
(10-07-2015, 11:55 PM)Robert Baird Wrote:  If you are talking about latent sexual issues we would have to address the FACT that there are six distinct sexes. We would have to guess and speculate about Lewis - and I prefer not to disparage without a modicum of reason.


(10-07-2015, 07:12 PM)A better day Wrote:  Mr. Baird, they used the excuse of "nature" study as a euphemism.

I know I'm going off topic a bit Mr. Baird, but could you kindly explain to me these "facts" about there being six distinct sexes to me more fully? You have mentioned this on a couple of other threads but have never to my knowledge explained the reasoning behind it. Please "address the FACT" for me.

There is a principle which is a ban against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation    -    Edmund Spencer
The following 2 users Like Elf's post:
  • umphreak,

10-08-2015, 11:34 PM #8
Robert Baird
****
Justiciar
Status: Offline Posts:914 Likes Received:282
On two separate occasions I have linked the research - one in biology and the other physiology and genetics. People who have not read the genetic research who think it is another psychological evaluation have remarked as you are doing (again).

The pschologists have been proven correct by and large but they only dealt with two and sometimes (seldom  - four - the hermaphodite or as is the case with the Olympic athlete from a couple of events ago).

Sal just took a course at a univeristy and confirmed it as well. It has been understood by adepts for millennia and I could inundate you with reasons why they knew it - under the title androgyny - (Maybe pederasty) but that would flood the board.

The Dominican kids who are being given drugs are being abused just becauise people still thinnk of sex in Feudal religious ways.
The following 1 user Likes Robert Baird's post:
  • Sal

10-09-2015, 12:56 AM #9
umphreak
***
Marshall
Status: Offline Posts:258 Likes Received:516
(10-08-2015, 01:21 PM)Elf Wrote:  I know I'm going off topic a bit Mr. Baird, but could you kindly explain to me these "facts" about there being six distinct sexes to me more fully? You have mentioned this on a couple of other threads but have never to my knowledge explained the reasoning behind it. Please "address the FACT" for me.

Elf, I took a look at one of the links RB provided and it did not in any way support the claim he is making about there being six distinct sexes.  Another member, I think it was Riddler, called him on this in another thread and he did not respond.  Basically he is trying to claim that people who have chromosome abnormalities are somehow a distinct sex.  These are people who are actually male or female but have either an extra or a missing chromosome.  It is a genetic abnormality, not a different sex.  Some of these are well known syndromes like Turner syndrome or Klinefelter syndrome that can cause malformations and other health problems for those affected.  Other karyotypes may have an extra chromosome but have either mild or no symptoms, and in many cases these people have no idea that they have any chromosomal abnormality unless they have genetic testing done for some reason.

At any rate, some people have hypothesized that transsexuals may have a non-traditional karyotype, but this study found that over 97.5% of transsexuals studied had normal karyotypes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114769
The following 1 user Likes umphreak's post:
  • Elf

10-09-2015, 01:31 AM #10
Robert Baird
****
Justiciar
Status: Offline Posts:914 Likes Received:282
Well, I would appreciate someone quoting when they say something in an article does not prove what I say it does. That of course - was not done.

Here is the common everyday Wikipedia weighing in on the issue of dimorphic brains and how women and men can have the other sex brain make up. That in my book means four sexual typologies before getting into varieties of metabolism, kinks and other issues.

The one I linked for The Creeper addressed biology. I also just put another start on the androgyny issue under What is an Alchemist - knowing how nmonumentally dense people here (and in society) choose to be when they are brainwashed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscien...ifferences

The Turner's syndrome and Kleinfelters mentioned above is just part of many intersex conditions according to plannedparenthood.org.

[quote]

How Common Are Intersex Conditions?

It is common to believe that all people fall into one of two categories — female or male.

But that is not true. {My note of emphasis due to the dense nature of closed minded people who often BELIEVE myths rather than science.}

Some people are born with external sex organs that are not easily identifiable as female or male. Other people have sex chromosomes that are different from the usual XX (female) or XY (male). People whose biological sex is not clear in these ways have intersex conditions. About 1 in 2,000 people born in the U.S. is intersex.

There are many different ways that intersex conditions appear. Genitals that are not easily identifiable as female or male are sometimes apparent at birth. But sometimes it is not obvious until puberty. People with intersex conditions may be considered sexually ambiguous in different ways: They may have sex organs that appear to be somewhat female or male or both. They do not, however, have complete female genitals and complete male genitals. They may have a large clitoris — more than two-fifths of an inch long. They may have a small penis — less than an inch long.

Some babies are born with both ovarian and testicular tissue.

Some people have chromosomes that are different. Two common chromosomal intersex conditions are: Turner Syndrome = XO Klienfelter’s Syndrome = XXY There are other differences a person could have that cannot be found without testing chromosomes and hormones, or examining internal sex organs. Sometimes the difference is never noticed, so some people have intersex conditions for their whole lives and never know.

Some intersex people are transgender, but intersex does not necessarily mean transgender, and transgender does not necessarily mean intersex. - See more at: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/...zoAZo.dpuf
This post was last modified: 10-09-2015, 01:43 AM by Robert Baird.
The following 1 user Likes Robert Baird's post:
  • Sal




  • 1
  • 2