Woody Lies, Alien Moods

IF THE MOOD DOES NOT FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT

A woman has accused Woody Allen of having “sexually assaulted” her when she was seven years old, twenty-one years ago.

Naturally, the queen of populist confusion, Oprah Winfrey, jumped on the bandwagon of indignation, now that her co-jet setter Obama has given her the “Medal of Freedom”. She howled all over that “child molesters are child rapists”. If so, then rape is just molestation, and soon murder will be confused with spanking.

I knew this gory story not, I hate people abusing children, & don’t particularly love Mr. Allen’s movies (I have seen none for years).

However there was a problem we meet all the time: are there more sophisticated ways of telling lies from truth? How can we stay one mental analysis ahead of liars, and detect them?

It’s easy enough when plutocrat Pelosi comes around and disingenuously rises her plastic surgery eyebrows to the sky, looking like a fish out of the water, affecting stupefaction: ”We should have done single-payer!”, she croaks, blatantly lying about Obamacare, aka Pelosicare.

Lying is to be suspected when people claim having endured traumatic facts, yet, the mood they exhibit, through facial expression, body language, or expressed facts or emotions, do not reflect trauma, but a completely different mood (say vengeance, or flippancy). This is the case with Mr. Allen’s accuser:  strong moods are in evidence, which are not coherent with the alleged facts.

I found stories of alleged sex abuse interesting as an occasion of trying to find out if one could distinguish patterns of veracity or falsehood, be it from the Vatican, or Dylan Farrow. Her letter was in the New York Times. Let’s quote:

(A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public.

It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.)

(BTW, assaulting children is not just “sex abuse”) .

Dylan’s story hinges around a vague, but grave, accusation: “Woody Allen sexually assaulted me“. That’s vague in light of the fact that she gives plenty of much more innocuous specifics, including accusing him to have put a “thumb” in her mouth. She is specific for her mouth, but nebulous for the much graver “sexual assault“. Why that discrepancy?

She indulges in elaborate descriptions of the non legally prosecutable: “I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him… I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear… So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen.”

… with the flippant. Dylan starts her letter with: “What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set.“… Lots of irrelevant, innocuous details here, whereas the accusation of abuse takes just two words: ”sexually assaulted”.

It’s weird: I was assaulted, with potentially lethal force, more than three times, and I don’t like to talk about it, but if I volunteered accusations, I would have details. One does not forget them, these things happen in slow, dramatic motion, before and after blacking out.

Details are central to clean journalism. Kristof, one of the NYT’s top reporters, ought to be specific: lay it out, or shut up, because it’s just vicious gossip otherwise.

Later on we learn in “Dylan’s” story that “Woody Allen” is her “father“. Although he is also called a “predator”..

The alleged victim comes back twice on the necessity of mixing movie preferences and a totally unrelated thing, liking a movie director. Thus, by this blatant mix-up, she flaunts her worship for highly emotional confusion. Con-fused. She is fusing together completely unrelated subjects, because of a passion she has.

There was once a young and bright mathematician named Oswald Teichmüller. A fanatical Nazi, he died on the Eastern Front. However, if someone told me that my preferred Teichmüller space is of import in a discussion of Teichmüller’s Nazism, I would think that person is deranged.

In the letter published by Kristof she claims that: ”I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me.” If that sounds bizarre it’s because it is: Mia Farrow had also adopted a child with Andre’ Previn whom Mr. Allen later married (not Previn, but the child). (Also Mr. Allen’s child with Farrow looks like Frank Sinatra… with whom Farrow kept having a relationship, although it was officially ended… while being, more or less, with Allen.)

I would gather from this the modus operandi that inhabits the alleged victim of Mr. Allen: she confuses for all to see fact & fiction, the vague and the grave, with passion all over, associating Mr. Allen to a number of contradictory concepts.

So, just from this letter, I guess her accusations are lies. This is very different from the situation in the Catholic Church, where systematic abuse of children has been systematically decriminalized, as just charged by the United Nations.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the so called Holy See to “immediately remove all known and suspected child sexual abusers… The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by and the impunity of the perpetrators,”

The Holy See is the Holy No See, the oldest pedophobic, misogynistic organization in the world… except, of course, when it was managed by the Borgias (when women were definitively loved, as the Pope fathered more than 100 children). The Vatican tells us it celebrates god, but then it despises woman, we know it is lying (as woman is obviously one of god’s crucial creatures).

The point is that the mood of the Catholic Church, avoiding women as if they had the plague, and being outrageously familiar with children as if it had fathered every single one of them (“my child… my son,” etc.) is conducive to exactly what it has been doing for 2,000 years: tending to make children into symbols who are all too loved.

Traditionally, when emulators of Sherlock Holmes try to find the truth, they search for revealing contradictions between facts. I suggest to detect lies with a more general method: finding contradiction between what is expressed and the moods that should underlay them. This is especially important with system of thoughts.

A recent example is found in SOTU 2014. Obama pontificated that “ordinary” people had nothing to fear from his secret services. Nice idea. However, this reflects a mood that distinguishes between “ordinary” and non-“ordinary” people. In other words, a mood of spying on all people, be it only to find who is ordinary, and who is not. His underlying mood was not coherent with his statement.

Moods have to fit the facts. When there is a discrepancy between alleged facts and moods, one has to suspect lying.

Patrice Aymé

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Woody Lies, Alien Moods”

  1. John Rogers Says:

    Nicely done Patrice. I really like your mood-expression contradiction as an indicator. Make that REALLY like.

    I don’t know if it adds anything to this, but I live in NY and know a number of people in the media and publishing industries.

    After all the sturm und drang of the whole Woody, Mia, Soon Yi business, Mia wrote a bio-memoir about it all, sort of a warts-and-all reminiscence called “What Falls Away”. Now if you followed and recall that child custody, take-a-side fight (sort of like the present flap all over again), a good metaphor for the emotional level would have been the German-Russian front in WWII, Cannae, or the sack of Carthage – no quarter given.

    Against that background, it seems unbelievable, but one of the things cut from Mia’s draft by her editors for publication was her meetings with Woody in NY hotels during this time for sexual release. She apparently did not seem to understand she would probably be spat on in the streets if she let that out. That you could not play the moral high ground card (he “sexually abused” my 7-year old daughter! he left me for a quasi-incestous relationship with my adopted daughter!) while muttering out of the side of your mouth at the same time, “Yeah, but I fucked him too because, you know, I had needs.”

    The moral, emotional, and logical confusion of all this (along with the December-May couplings of Mia, Sinatra, Previn, Woody, Soon Yi), the uncertain paternities, and the rest of it is stunning.

    It does seem to me though that the black hole in the center of this universe is Mia Farrow.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the support John! I really REALLY like that! I think to look for dichotomies between alleged facts one claims, or ideas one allegedly hold, and exhibited moods is highly enlightening. This works even at the civilizational level.

      I am stunned by what you revealed BTW. As I said I knew nothing much about this story, but I found stunning that it was rolled all over, accompanied by 80+ year old Polanski, as a proof that women were going nowhere because of these two monsters (Polanski has been married for the same woman, a famous actress, for well over 25 years). I rather think it’s the other way around: it’s because one pretends that the occasional “sex predator” (whoever that is) hinder women, that women are going nowhere. There is sexism, true, but the sexism is not of the nature usually condemned (and that’s why it thrives).

      In my experiences, all too many women love all too much so called “sexual predators”. That may actually give them a false sense of power. It seems I ought to study more that Mia Farrow…

      BTW, I do not think that WWII was an all out war. True there was cannibalism in the times of Stalingrad. However, Hitler did not use the nearly 250,000 tons of neurotoxic weapons, including several millions of neurotoxic shells, he had stocked. That was about 100,000 MORE tons than the USA had (in Europe).

      The Third Punic war, the OBLITERATION of Carthage, was perhaps the most horrendous example of total war known.

      Alexander let his men have a go at Persepolis, because he had held them back with nearly all other cities before (with the exception of Tyr, which was not Persian, just allied to Persia). Trasimene, Cannae were extermination battles in a total war, but Hannibal was unable to go through Roman fortifications, especially the giant walls of Rome. The counterattack of Scipio Africanus, complete with D Day, stays one of the most astounding military feat ever. Differently from the defeat of France in 1940, it was sure to work, though (…as long as there was no terrible storm of something).
      PA

  2. Dominique Deux Says:

    I can’t find it in myself to be indignant about this (whether the alleged deed happened or not). It is part of the everyday give and take, a matter for local law enforcement.

    What I find interesting is the recurring pattern of media hue and cry about sex crime among the upper crust. Should it not ring a bell when a hired mouthpiece like Oprah starts hammering her pulpit? It’s all the usual smokescreen.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with child molesters being sent to jail. Strange, however, that if the molestation is not purported to involve the child’s genitals and some celeb, nobody is interested. Puritanism and prurience are such easy levers for mass manipulation.

    Even as DSK, Polanski or Woody are paraded onscreen, nobody cares about the daily violence visited on millions of children and women worldwide (except of course if the magic word (sex) can be worked into it – then watch the churches and do-gooders squeal themselves hoarse). Sweatshop slaves, Walmart till slaves, Hilton chambermaids – they’re all perfectly fair game for their owner-exploiters, as long as they’re not openly groping their property. It takes a few hundred atrocious deaths in a greed-induced fire to work up a tiny, short-lived blip on the world’s consciousness
    .
    Let’s not be fooled, shall we.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed Dominique, indeed. In the case of DSK, it was clearly a plot to impose the pawn of the USA a Mexican carefully trained, educated and groomed in the USA.

      Obama tried to impose his Mexican boy briskly, but Merkel reacted admirably by saying that Europe would rather get a Chinese head for the IMF. The Americans relented because Lagarde was Chicago trained and not an economist (so, in their view, her second in command, an American, would reign).

      Of course DSK was a fool all along. The USA system is totally fascist for those who don’t play along. There is absolutely no forgiveness.

      In the meantime about Woody Allen, I learned the charges were bogus: the girl was always with governesses, and two quit because Mia Farrow asked them to lie. In the USA, accusation is traditionally protected, and prosecution corrupted by the MOOD that deals ought to be cut, instead of truth to be found.
      PA

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The USA wants to keep on abusing children industrially in peace. From Wikipedia:
      The United States has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), but is one of three UN members not to have ratified it (other non-ratifying members being Somalia and South Sudan).[1][2] Somalia has recently announced plans to ratify the convention,[3] and South Sudan’s parliament has passed a bill to ratify the convention.[4] This will leave the U.S. as the only non-ratifying member of the UN.

      UNCRC protects and promotes the rights of all children around the world.

      Let Opera Winfree gloat about that and smirk that the Europeans are racist because they do not serve her 24/7!
      PA

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The dichotomy between the USA refusing to recognize the rights of children and the screaming against rebellious film makers being child abusers is an example of a mood discordant with alleged behaviors. If the USA was really in the mood of protecting children, it would do more than just screaming against those who do not like the established order.

      Polanski old, rehashed sex charges resurfaced after he made a scathing movie telling the truth, namely that Harvard was a plutocratic university entangled with the world’s most satanic plots. (See the relationship between Harvard and the creation of a Russia plutocracy in the 1990s, or Qaddafi…)

      It’s of course in extremely bad taste as Sharon Tate, Polanski beloved extremely pregnant wife was sex tortured and murdered in LA by the Manson Cult. So to accuse Polanski, through the ages, there again, is an inappropriate mood. The charges against him, even if true, do not compare with the tragedy he went through.
      PA

  3. Paul Handover Says:

    Just reading a fascinating book that has received wide applause from many professionals. It’s called Waking The Tiger – Healing Trauma and is from the pen of Peter A. Levine Ph.D. More of Mr. Levine here: http://www.traumahealing.com/somatic-experiencing/peter-levine.html

    Published in 1997, the book shines light on the “vast mysteries of trauma”.

    I’ll review it in due course over at Learning from Dogs when the book has been fully read (assuming I haven’t slit my wrists).

  4. TomAlex Says:

    Patrice, this is a well done essay about another of the ‘politically correct’ doctrines that seeks to do away with reason, evidence and the principle of ‘innocence until proven guilty’ and its substitution with ‘he looks guilty’. All these systematically forget or try to wash away the reason for requiring proof, evidence and reason: That otherwise ANYONE can be made to look guilty and found guilty by the Oprahs. And of course as you point out if one is to come out, one must give details, not just ‘I was abused/assaulted, take my word for it’. And, mind you, this case was dropped in the US where DSK is arrested for sexual assault/rape in a HOTEL where apparently noone else noticed any screams, or when rich athletes like Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant get after hours visits to their rooms, presumably to discuss their sport and end up sexually assaulting as if they could not find a woman otherwise…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Tom: Exactly so!
      “another of the ‘politically correct’ doctrines that seeks to do away with reason, evidence and the principle of ‘innocence until proven guilty’ and its substitution with ‘he looks guilty’”

      I would even suggest: “it’s politically correct to claim that he ought to be guilty”. Some pseudo-feminists even claimed that people like Allen and Polanski cause the glass ceiling, because they are role models for woman abuse…

      When a celebrity has a sulfurous reputation, sex has got to be problematic: if you bring no witness, you can get accused of rape, and if you bring some, you get accused of gang rape...
      PA

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: