My letter to Australian GQ (re Hugh Jackman article)

Discussion of the SES' satellite schools in Australia and New Zealand.
User avatar
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:49 am
Location: Gloucestershire

Re: My letter to Australian GQ (re Hugh Jackman article)

Postby ET » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:44 pm

bluemoon wrote:Returning to the original post of this thread, ET's letter: reading again what you went through ET is so awful that I simply don't know what to say. Thank you for doing the letter. Being in the organisation for so many years without knowing about this side of its history is one of the things I don't think I will ever come to terms with.

Ah, thank you, Bluemoon. I can't believe it sometimes when I write it down, but it definitely happened, and it still affects me now. If my parents hadn't been in the SES I might have been given the physiotherapy I needed when I was small, and I could very well not be suffering now from the crippling back problems that have seriously disabled me in the last 20 years. Not to mention all the emotional problems I still have stemming from that time.

It's important for us all to remember that child abuse in any form causes lifelong scars, whether emotional or physical. That's why we have to keep shouting about this where we can (hence my letter).
Pupil at St James Girl's School from 1979-1989, from age 4-14. Parents ex-members of SES.

Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:05 pm

Re: My letter to Australian GQ (re Hugh Jackman article)

Postby actuallythere » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:54 pm


You are indeed an inspiration to us all.

It is interesting that while a lot has been said on this forum about the abuse itself, there has been much less analysis of why the abuse took place or is taking place. It seems that most of the abuse was carried out by SES men while women turned a blind eye, though plenty of it was carried out by SES women while men turned a blind eye. My views are as follows:

SES membership establishes a hierarchical power relationship. This is not only a case of children being ranked below women, who are ranked below men. There is even ranking among the women themselves, and among the men themselves. At the same time, all members of SES are made to feel ranked above non-members in the wider world, even as this feeling is concealed by ritualised statements in which members convince themselves that the ego is being kept in check. The attainment of higher rank is itself an aspiration, as is the quest for enlightenment. These are entirely egocentric goals, appealing to lost, fragile and insecure people in particular.

The SES hierarchy, in turn, directly causes the psychological and physical abuse that ET and others have recounted. When men lead and women support, women indulge in devotion and men indulge in aggression. I would like to ask a group of psychologists whether they think it might be that SES, just like Jeremy Sinclair's advertising profession, exploits and manipulates (and sometimes unleashes) repressed subconscious urges.

SES appears to be experimenting with primal impulses that exist in all of us. Somehow, the abuse is prompted by the hierarchical power relationship within this closed social group. Perhaps the abuse is the ultimate self-affirmation of the previously lost and insecure: once I was weak and unwanted and outside, now I have authority and respect among my elite peers, look how I exact my power over this feeble creature who is beneath me and refuses to conform to the teaching that makes me special at last.

Women, really, are the solution. By women realizing they themselves are a vital component of the SES social manipulation scheme, they can see that disrupting the hierarchical power relationships, ideally by walking away from SES, is the best thing they can do for the next generation of helpless SES children.

Because the fact remains that women sent their children to St. Vedast, women told their children that their grievances were 'all in the mind', women were turned on by being led by men, by affirming and by condoning. In this way women are equally responsible for SES violence, which is usually carried out by men. Women who stand up and refuse to play the game are doing the right thing - they are also, subtly, showing men that their power is not absolute. That, itself, reduces the chances of abuse in the future.

No matter that SES is evolving, attempting to adapt to the internet, undertaking a reputation management strategy, and steering the behaviour of its egomaniacs more carefully. The teaching remains the same, and the teaching causes the abuse. There is always the threat of abuse coming back again, because of the teaching.

I'm sure everyone has a different take on it, but those are my particular thoughts on the matter.

Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: My letter to Australian GQ (re Hugh Jackman article)

Postby woodgreen » Sun May 22, 2011 11:19 pm

bluemoon wrote:Re: above post

Thanks Woodgreen, thats very kind of you. I've looked at the link and it's helpful. I must admit I find these matters related to the law very confusing. I don't understand how writing about what happened to you and how the organisation works can be claimed to be libel. It may have been just blustering on his part, but I guess that shows how clever they are - the leader was a lawyer and knows what he's doing. I think I will have to get someone to look over it properly for me otherwise I'll worry.

Thanks again, Bluemoon

Hi Bluemoon. I was reminded of your dilema in the last day or so because of the furore over the super injunction and the unnamed footballer who's lawyers are attempting to sue/control Twitter and ultimately a host of other internet posters/bloggers . My conclusion ( yet to be fully proved!) isthat the footballer, his lawyers, and the courts have got it all wrong, and the supporters on the internet of the right to freedom of expression in naming the footballer have proved that money and the outdated legal boys cannot buy silence and control. Still your choice whether to post your paper or not, and maybe the content does not really matter anymore, but your freedom of speech on a Forum that is simply seeking to explain the truth about the SES, is I think highlighted by this very important case. Awaiting developments and whether the outcome might be relevant to the freedom of this Forum. And we all know who the footballer is - might cost him a pretty penny before it's all over!!! regards woodgreen.
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

Return to “The Australian and NZ schools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests