Left Behind Parents revisit my comment section, based at the Toland post.

You can find it in the recent lineup, or here.

The main theme seems to be what value there is (or isn’t) to a Japan legal strategy for the Left Behind parent to see his or her kid. Almost always, his.

I appreciate new insights and new directions. I am hoping to talk down what clearly doesn’t work, but talk up avenues that might be successful.

[Update 4/21/12: My emphasis on this go around is going to be “middle”. I don’t want to do a rehash or have it be host to another fight like in January. I know that the two factions of Left Behind Parents have some serious disagreements, and they don’t particularly care much for each other. Internet fights are always worst–they rarely resolve amicably, because the medium is so shadowy. (Who wants to make up with someone who previously attacked you in the shadows?)

It looks like this go around is better, because we are getting down to brass tacks as to why the “work ONLY within Japan” strategy is an effective nonstarter.]

2 Replies to “Left Behind Parents revisit my comment section, based at the Toland post.”

  1. Hoofin, After reading the entire thread about my case, all I have to say to you is “Welcome to our world.” When it comes to the “Dear Leader”, it’s not about what you say, it’s about whether or not you follow him absolutely and blindly, or whether you question him. If you follow him unconditionally and don’t dare question his contradictions, you are with him. If you so much as dare challenge him or ask logical questions regarding his decisions, he turns on you and you become the object of his attacks. To the outside world, it looks like two factions of parents fighting against each other, but in reality, it is one set of parents moving forward and trying to make a difference, while a few rogue elements, under the guidance of a narcissistic megalomaniac, get in our way and block us at every avenue. It’s simply a reality we’ve accepted by now.

    It always follows the same chronological pattern: 1) a person or entity, such as David Goldman and the Bring Sean Home Foundation, or the Office of Congressman Chris Smith or the office of Congressman Jim Moran or other left-behind parents, initially see the issue as two different factions of parents fighting among themselves, and feel like they don’t know which group to “side with”, and try to play it “down the middle” in a neutral position. 2) Eventually, they start to see the contradictions in many of the “Dear Leaders” arguments, and they question that, and 3) because they question the “Dear Leader”, they become the newest victim of the “Dear Leader’s” attacks for daring to question him. You are one of many who have gone through this pattern Hoofin.

    Don’t feel bad, though. I went through it too. I worked closer than anyone with the “Dear Leader” for two full years, from 2007 through 2009. It all came to a head during Christopher Savoie’s imprisonment. If you look at the early statements of the “Dear Leader” from that period of time, he fully supported Christopher. He only turned on Christopher when he started “losing control” of the issue. The issue became a National Issue and that became more than the “Dear Leader” could handle, and spiraled out of his control. The truth is that a megalomaniac like the “Dear Leader” “exhibits such tremendous ego and self-confidence in reality has such low self-esteem and such a fragile ego that he cannot abide any expression other than his own, for fear of annihilation of the self. Therefore everything that is not under his control is perceived as a threat.” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    The “dear leader” could no longer control everything in the world of Japan Child Abduction once Christopher’s actions became a national media event, so Christopher became a threat to be eliminated. It’s been like that ever since, and like you said, the “Dear Leader” and his minions “follow us around the internet” with the singular intention of libeling and defaming us. They are no longer welcome in the key Congressional offices or with other left-behind parent groups. Online blogs are all they have, and their interest is more in attacking us then in discussing substantive legal and political issues, or in finding ways to actually get our children returned. The more you try to engage them in a serious discussion, the more they attack and twist whatever words you may write. It’s just one giant distraction from the work we have to do to get our children back.

    Just know that you are not the first to go through what you are experiencing with the “Dear Leader” and you won’t be the last, but hopefully this email will at least enlighten you as to exactly what you are dealing with. Thanks again for your interest in the issue.

    1. Yes, well, Paul, I see what you are saying. For me, the final point was in that 120-something response thread, where Patrick twisted the comment about not being able to make post where he used apostrophes correctly into a zing a Moises, which was not meant at all. It was really bad, coming on top of all the questions that were simply ignored. So he’s not welcome to comment, and I will just flush out any more comments.

      I really don’t need anyone hijacking my blog for a personal vendetta.

Comments are closed.