The twisted logic of the witch hunters

Here’s a conundrum for you: let’s say you are one of a largish group of people who’ve been falsely accused of doing something terrible. Do you:

1. Defend yourself, state emphatically that you didn’t do it, and continue to assert your innocence whenever others repeat the false allegations?
2. Say nothing, keep your head down, pretend it isn’t happening, and hope it will all blow over eventually?

According to Hoaxtead mobsters Kristie Sue Costa and her tiny brainless minion Prey on the Children, it doesn’t matter. No matter whether you choose option 1 or option 2, you are guilty as charged.

There you have it, folks.

“One of the reasons I support the children is because I know the father is conducting his own “its (sic) a hoax” campaign”, says Kristie Sue.

“When satanists come out of their hiding, to scream its (sic) a hoax immediately, you know something is odd. Proof of cover up is proof of guilt”, says PotC.

Setting aside for the moment the bizarre presumption that “the father” or “satanists” run this blog, we find it very interesting that these modern-day witch-hunters seem to believe that anyone who attempts to mount a defence against false allegations is, per se, admitting their guilt.

It reminds us very much of the immortal words of that great hempatarian philosopher Abraham “Spoonman” Christie: “If you’re crying, you’re lying”.

Silence equals assent?

On the other hand, according to the Hoaxtead mobsters, anyone who says or does nothing defend themselves against the false allegations is providing…you got it! Evidence of their own guilt!

The most obvious example, which we’ve heard ad nauseam, is the argument that if the accused members of the imaginary cult were actually innocent, they would prove this to the world at large by displaying their tattoos, or more accurately, their lack of tattoos, to…well, that’s not really clear, actually.

The police? No, they’re in on it. Can’t be trusted.

A physician? No, the “cult members” would just choose one of their own members, and he or she would claim they were all innocent.

A newspaper? Nope, mainstream media can’t be trusted either.

Well, never mind. The fact that the accused haven’t shown their lack of tattoos to someone is a clear indication of their guilt.

The great double bind

Back in the 1950s, a psychologist called Gregory Bateson described something he called a “double bind“: an emotionally distressing dilemma in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

The classic double bind example, of course, is found in the Salem witch trials: a person suspected of being a witch is bound and thrown into the water. If they float, they are a witch, and must be put to death. If they sink, they are innocent…and dead. No matter what, the outcome will always be the same.

So: if an innocent person or group of people fight back against false allegations, they are obviously guilty. But if they don’t do anything to prove they’re innocent…they are obviously guilty. It’s a nice little game the Hoaxtead mobsters play.

The assumption within the paradox

And then, of course, there is the assumption, embedded in almost everything the Hoaxtead mobsters say, that anyone who stands up for the accused must obviously be one of the accused. In the examples above, we are all either RD or satanists (or both).

How do Kristie Sue, Prey on the Children, and their little friends know this?

Why, it’s because we defend the accused! Obviously.

The idea that people who are completely unrelated to the case, some of whom have never even set foot in the UK, let alone in Hampstead, would decide to stand up for another group of people they’d never met, just because it’s the right thing to do, seems utterly incomprehensible to people like Kristie Sue and PotC.

Never mind that neither of them has ever met the two wanted criminals whose actions they so diligently defend. That’s different!

Because in the twisted, illogical minds of the Hoaxtead witch hunters, anyone who stands up for the accused is obviously one of the accused. And if they defend themselves, or if they don’t defend themselves, the outcome will always be the same: guilty. So build that bonfire high, boys. We got us some witch-burnin’ to do!