SSS was the spiritual leader of a legally and formally ordained religious movement, unlike Bokononism. Several years after his death, subsequent to a long reign of declining health, accusations came to light, and last summer a 299-witness investigation was undertaken. He was evidently a Jeck & Hyde character, though as with many media heroes he was perceived by his admirers as incapable of doing wrong – too big headed to fail. His champions advocate for him unfailingly and persist with campaigns of denial and retribution, while others do their utmost to compartmentalize.
They may disavow the evil behaviour but continue to cling to teachings which they believe are worthy. “As SSS said,” and “as SSS envisaged,” they repeat. Love the drunk, hate the demon drink, so that saying goes. A dead person is not around to defend himself – it’s unclear whether he believes in soul splitting and therefore the afterlife – but can the defenders and denialists – the pool table wasn’t regulation size – themselves be reproached or are they better left unheeded? Will a single divine defender of SSS be reinvented as HHH; as in Healthy, Happy and Holy; Har … Har … Har; or Hip Hip Hooray, (3H3), and appointed by acclamation as dictum in chief? SSS is no longer around to defend himself, but he’s also not around to face the mantras.
During my last journey, the first draft incorporated a cultural reference to Bill Cosby, in association with the hypocrite who was bound to be the first volunteer for black conversation therapy. On the basis of the cruelty test, I felt bad and guilty and replaced Cosby with CK. For this current journey, though, the chips are down and will fall where they will.
According to the independent review, SSS, now let me step back a bit first. The outcome and implications of the investigative report seemed clear cut, as translucent as the interviews and citations were. However, maybe there is more than meets the eye to SSS, because he apparently was able to fight back, conduct damage control, from beyond the grave. The independent examiners were not fully accredited in their state of residence and therefore the notes they took are inadmissible in a court of his adorers. The allegations of physical, mental and emotional abuse therefore didn’t happen; the victims’ lives revert to the factory settings and the malicious software hasn’t taken root. This excuse is more powerful than a hard reboot.
The authors of the report began by defining intercourse as “physical insertion, however slight,” or various forms of contact or openings. This I think is funny as in funny/strange, because the researchers have to be crystal clear in their language yet at the same time professional and undemonstrative about a delicate subject, particularly as the interactions mainly involved adults, albeit in most cases barely. They have to deploy euphemisms such as “openings” with a straight face, and can’t say “let’s face it he was a monster, monster for lack of a better word, who could get away with anything because of his image, his protectors and his forcefields,” this elephant in the room, whereas a proper tribute would be for him to be taken out back and shot – with an elephant gun.
However, nothing at all is funny about battery, harassment or actions which are exceedingly unethical – without a doubt his organization had on the payroll stewards of sustainability but how about stewards of financial propriety, integrity, transparency or pedo-mania? Moreover, some grown up groupies dismiss touching between a “religious leader” and a student as acceptable if viewed in the hypothetical context of two consenting adults. This is inaccurate, because genuine consent can not occur when one of the persons is in the position of “influence or authority.” The victim is “legally unable to provide consent.” As is often the case, the student may have sought the wisdom of the spiritual leader during a period of personal crisis and if this trust is “redirected” toward his own “gratification,” this could be an open and shut instance of “clergy misconduct.” Would his apologists volunteer for a blindfolded taste test by a doctor they have delegated with their lives, while under anaesthesia?
In the words of witnesses:
“I did not consent the first time with SSS. None of it was normal and none of it was OK.”
“SSS said to me: I want him dependent on you. Go to your trailer; he will come to you. SSS told me to do something with his anus, which was never a thought I had in my life.”
“He bit my tongue, bit my nipples, left marks on my face from sucking, and pinched me. It was not fun.”
“He bit my tongue and sucked it – it was blue and bleeding. He would bite and grab hard. He was careful not to bite anything that would show.”
“He was controlling us in this code of silence while on the other hand marking our faces.”
“He got on the bed and made kissy faces … he was 62 and I was 24.”
“When they were choosing what to watch to TV, I asked to watch Seinfeld. He said, -why not watch this porn-. This is what you wanted to do. They also watched the Playboy Channel.”
“They had a TV in the room and often played sexually explicit and violent material. They would watch this for hours at a time, day on end.”
“I was privileged yet devastated and shocked when SSS gave me a ring and said I was his wife. How could that be? He was already married. He had grandchildren.”
“He was a narcissistic sociopath. We were fed belief systems. It was a cult mentality.”
“I was seven years old. He instructed my parents and others to have their children sent to a different set of parents and child swap.”
“I was guarding a 19-20 year old and reporting back any movement. He was afraid she would escape. I was told not to prevent it but to report it to him. I felt something fishy was going on that no one wanted to let me in on.”
How did he create the mind space to coin his folksy phrases if he spent all his time watching the Playboy After Dark Channel with his captains and lieutenants?
There was more and it gets worse. It gets much worse. I couldn’t read any more. If N’s pit bull lawyer had been there and had the nerve to put the fear of the anti-Christ into him.
Guide your way on.