By Admin Comment Closed

Royal Psychological Warfare Across Borders

 

Introduction:- The Meaning of Psychological Warfare.

This weeks podcast explores the ramifications of psychological warfare and its application in the modern era, to be delivered across borders.  I have a particular interest in psychology, and I am a Chartered professional in various forms of human behaviour and the rationale behind it some of the manifestation.  The title for this podcast comes from a very interesting book by Neil Morton, called Psychological Warfare.  It covers a topic I am deeply interested in and it forms a very useful backdrop to its application in terms of the various forms of delivery used by the British Royal Family and its partners in the media – both printed and televised, and in all the societal groups I have mentioned many times before, who all support each other, in order to ensure that they all continue to benefit from a pattern of life that has existed for centuries.

In this podcast, I will quote extracts from Neil Morton’s book here and there, but I would recommend that you read the book for yourselves, if you have an interest in this area of human behaviour and the manipulation of emotions and actions, i.e., propaganda techniques – which we have also covered previously in at least two podcasts.

I will read extracts from the book explaining what Psychological Warfare actually is, and how it is formally explained in the book.  I will then go on to discuss the area of abuse termed Coercive Control, and how it links to this podcast topic.

I will outline how and where Coercive Control, as a form of abuse, sits within the law, and how there are countries and states adding this area into their legislature processes.  I will give some indicators of what Coercive Control is and is not.

When all those areas above have been covered, I will in my usual style, try to map treatment of Meghan and/or Harry by the BRF and media organisations in particular, using actual types of behaviour and how it was delivered and the eventual outcomes of each, and then I will underscore each one of those examples with the area of the law that has been breached.

Ultimately this podcast will provide examples which prove how all of the above has fed into the online community, not least because it can reach more people in one go, than any other medium, and in so doing, makes it a valuable and useful tool for abusers and abusive organisations and groups, to conduct abusive activity from one part of the world, to a target or targets based in a completely different country, and in some cases, on a different continent.  International law advocates and senior professionals in this field, need to factor this into actions against delivery methods used in this way, to adults as well as to children.  The abusers are able to play cyber warfare, by manipulating the minds of millions who have access to the information being put out to the masses, to manipulate mindsets and in so doing change points of view.  It can lead to the build up of making someone more popular than if none of this manipulation had been attempted, and likewise it can cause vast numbers to begin to harbour resentment against a person or group based on the drip drip impact of a type of rhetoric which appears in increasing frequency in printed and televised media, and where some of the phrases used are repeated by a few people in those societal groups mentioned previously and before very long, social media is swamped by hordes of people supporting the same messages, targeting the same people and whose accounts are often days old.  Both sides of this coin of delivering two messages, based on the target of the love or hate, are very dangerous indeed.  Whatever the outcome, as the activity increases in the type of delivery and scale of the action, those who devised the warfare, are never at the front line, and the people who have fallen for the hype, at all stages of the hierarchy of hate models (we have also covered previously) are collateral damage. They are doing what was intended from the start, and they all believe with a passion, that they have found their niche and what they are doing will lead to a better world, knowing that their target of choice, is indeed a bad person, and will not be missed, and at worse, even if they still exist, they will be broken psychologically, and in the eyes of those who form the collateral damage groups, their purpose will be have been achieved.  ~Another person who has been taken down a peg or two, in their eyes only, will no longer outshine the chosen ones, chosen by those who devised the warfare in the first place but who can stand there with their hand behind their backs, looking innocent, and representing their nation like good figureheads are there to do, and most of the population will be focused on the next target in the population, to give them relevance again, to get up each morning, and to talk tactics with their peers, and it returns to Game On again.  That is what modern society has become in increasing areas, and decent people need to wake up and recognise that they are controlled pawns in a much wider game, and should consider how they would feel, if they or their peer group suddenly became the chosen prey for the next few years or decade – would it still be easy to get up each morning and face the day?

What Is Psychological Warfare? 

Extracts from Neil Morton’s book:-

Political warfare, hearts and minds, a propaganda to name a few.  While most people are aware of the emergence of psychological war, it can be traced back as far as mankind itself.  Psychological warfare is the use of non combat techniques to mislead and intimidate opponents and influence their psychological makeup.  The techniques employed are designed to target thoughts emotions and attitudes with propaganda and threats to influence a persons actions.  Propaganda is not a threatening concept when used alone Daniel Lerner wrote about the theory of black, white and grey propaganda in his 1949 book psych war psychological warfare against Germany D-Day to VE Day.

  • Let’s look at white propaganda: this defines a use of truthful information with a moderate bias to influence opponents in the Second World War.  This included millions of leaflets being dropped from planes over friendly and enemy territory.   the leaflet stated their source and contained information designed to encourage support and contributions from the targeted audience.  As great propaganda this will often be anonymous and contain information that is mainly true.   if there are untrue statements it is unlikely that they can be disproven it involves presenting legitimate arguments that are free from agenda but have undefined sources and then there’s
  • black propaganda put simply that’s fake news.  this type of propaganda can contain both true and false statements but it will appear to be legitimately sourced.   this type of propaganda is designed to be wholly believable and is distributed with the intent of subversion.
  • the difference between grey and black propaganda is often a very fine line.  the most effective form of black propaganda is formed to look like it has come from trusted sources often the biggest giveaway is any links to grey propaganda that are less convincing.   there are many different forms of psychological warfare but the result is just the same.   the tactics employed or designed to demoralise, influence beliefs, change motives and stir emotions.   the targets of these tactics can range from the man on the street to the highest form of government with everyone in between included.  simple forms of word of mouth, face to face communication may seem to be trustworthy but it can be affected by rumours and mistruths.
  • entertainment media sources – we may feel the television and film are purely used for entertainment but we can be influenced by them without even knowing it.   subtle messages and information can be presented in a way that seems like harmless fun but it can be an effective way of altering peoples thoughts and beliefs
  • audiomedia – if you listen to the radio you will already be aware of the power of sound gentle background noise can filyer through and register quite easily even though you may be concentrating on other things, your brain is hard wired to register silent visual media.  leaflets newspapers and magazines may seem old fashioned today but they still play a role.   they use visual images to appeal to our base instincts an influence our thoughts.
  • online sources of course the Internet and online influences cannot be ignored as we spend more time looking at screens the chance to influence our thoughts increases understanding. Psychological warfare means understanding its role in battle the quintessential arena for enemies and conflict typical tactics of printed leaflets. Using printed leaflets to suggest the enemy should withdraw from the battlefield distribution is simple.

The future of psychological operational techniques is unpredictable. It would be an understatement to say that we will see a significant change in the future. The only thing certain about the future of this type of mind control is that it will be different than what we are used to today.

The Application of the Theory

Psychological warfare is a form of psychological manipulation that uses non-violent means to demoralize and subdue the enemy. It is often associated with political campaigns, but can also be seen in military strategy.

The goal of a psychological warfare campaign is to weaken the morale of the target group so that they are less likely to want to fight or resist.

Psychological warfare can take many forms, including spreading propaganda and misinformation, destroying property, attacking infrastructure, or disrupting communications.

Psychological warfare tactics are used worldwide by different governments and organizations to influence the thoughts and emotions of a target audience.

The goal is to change the perception of a person or group and alter their behaviour in favour of an idea, cause, or organization. This is done by using propaganda techniques, such as spreading rumours about threats, attacking the enemy’s identity, values and traditions.

In today’s world with social media being an integral part of our lives, it has become easier for people to be influenced by these tactics. They have access to different points of view on any topic which can lead to confusion and uncertainty about what is true or false information.

Examples of subversive activity and their application to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

UK tabloid and BRF perspective of the end justifying the means ie the psychological game to be played.  Ie persuade the UK nation to be against The Sussexes, Particularly Meghan and see them in the wrong and not respecting “duty” etc and the Royal family being left in the lurch after they had made Meghan so welcome, and so on and so forth.  Anything should have been discussed in private rather than in front of a camera.  This being the traditional approach, whereby the BRF would then gaslight, and have different recollection of what was said or not said, or what was meant etc., and the British public would have no knowledge of the actual truth, only what the BRF thought their tabloid press printed as being the truth of that matter; information given by unknown sources from within the palace.  The traditional method used over time, and no way for anyone apart from who was there to challenge it.  By going to an independent voice and avenue for transmission, and not have to announce their intentions before any decision the Sussexes make now from now on, was an absolute rock solid way to get their message out, and not have to rely on UK tabloids agreed version of events with the palace.

By the getting the message out, and on camera, not to mention the footage that was not shown, was like taking out an insurance policy and letting the world know that it exists.  The BRF are not used to anyone escaping from the Cult set in opulence and definitely not surviving outside of the locked gates with no security or funding, and with the adding icing on the cake from the Harry’s family, the details of two Sussex locations (Canada and in California) were ‘leaked’ to the tabloid press, as part of the invisible contract.

This kind of insurance policy is gold, because the genie cannot be put back in the bottle, and all the minds of the global audience who watched it, more than once in some cases, cannot be told what they did not see.  No one behind the scenes could gaslight Harry and Meghan about their understanding of any aspect of those conversations and events.  It was a master stroke and one which many believe ultimately saved their lives, and at the very least reduced the risk of loss of life.

All of Harry’s life, countless people have written biographies of him and members of his family.  Despite them in theory having an hour or so with the Royal concerned, ultimately the books published contained content that mainly came from the tabloid, and an agreement reached on other aspects.  In the case of Harry, his books all followed the BRF official line, that he was a troubled teenager, and became a man with a range of mental illnesses, which were always written about in a critical way, and endeavoured to show Harry as being weaker for it, and not as strong and well behaved and understanding of duty, like everyone else in the family.  He was seen as the bad boy of the family, and when he managed to escape from the clutches of the family, and started to build a life for himself and his family, independent of the UK taxpayers and Royalty, the press turned on him even more.

Once the 12 month review that only the BRF wanted in the first place, it was evident that the shift in the publicly aired ire, was directed at Meghan.  Meghan was seen as the one who took the nations favourite prince away from his duty. To be honest, most of the attention was on Meghan from the beginning, but a fair amount was written about Harry too, but once the family left, you could see that an agreement had been made not to be too critical of the future Kings youngest son.  It was clear that they had not given up on Harry returning, and the hired hands in the media industry that very clearly had been given their orders, started on an obvious campaign to increase the risk to Meghan life, and that if such a tragedy occurred, Harry would return to the family fold. Since the Spring of 2022, a handful of so called pundits have been on a mission to openly talk about and show their disdain for Meghan, but only express sorrow and disappointment for Harry who they describe like a broken man, or a man who has been led astray by a woman.

The man who served in the army for 10 years and who reached the rank of Major but could not use it, because it would be higher than his brothers rank, is one of those situations that anywhere else would be seen as ridiculous.  A man who knew more about duty than most in the BRF

To think that the propaganda delivered by the tabloid since 2016, and continuing today, has worked on a nation, and its politicians (to the point that even if they thought otherwise, the male members of parliament would be most unlikely to say anything against the official line of the BRF, spoken and written about, by agreement through the tabloid press.  Only female MPs signed a petition where over 70 of them pointed out the treatment of Meghan, based on misogyny and racism, and called it out for what it was.  No male MP commented.  Says it all.

 

Tabloids continue to write around 20 articles a day on The Sussexes, all of it guesswork, because the Sussexes have nothing to do with Uk tabloids since March 2020.  They are in a powerful position now where they cannot be forced to use the Royal Rota, and have to listen to statements and read articles written about them, with no say in whether it is fact or fiction.  One of the main reasons that both the Royal family and the Royal Rota dung beetles, I refuse to call them journalists, are so angry about not having access to the Sussexes is because their income has reduced dramatically, and the only reason it has increased slightly (in comparison to what it was when Harry and Meghan were sitting ducks for the tabloids, is because of the incitement of hate business model & objective that has grown over the 6 years.  A whole industry has grown up on the back of it, and whilst they are making more money writing about the non uk tax funded Royals, than the money they make from writing an obligatory article maybe one a day from each tabloid, that very few read anyway, the tabloids are still losing a massive amount of income.  Harry and Meghan are enabling them to put food on the tabloid writers tables, so they are not starving, but they are not living a luxury life style anymore.

I always like to quote one Royal photographer, who is in print in one of the tabloids as stating that in his 30 years taking photos of the BRF, he earned more money in the 4 years that he was part of the pack covering the Royals when it included Harry and Meghan. The photographer concerned is on record as stating that he earned more in those 4 years, than all the 30 years combined working with the all the UK Royals.  He no longer works in that category of assignment now, but it gives you some idea of how they all used to live taking photos and writing articles about a societal family that the nation is told is there by the grace of God, and that they are anointed and to be worshipped and revered.  Yet in less than a quarter of the time, they earned more covering the Sussexes than the 30 years covering all the BRF combined.

They had a new jewel in their metaphoric crown, and they put it away and let the couple know every day, they did not deserve that attention the world was giving them, and that they should be less visible, less bright when visible (in the case of Meghan) and be the footstool and whipping boy for the older brother, and anyone else in the family who needed a distraction story or two written on any given day, Harry was there to fill that void, whether he liked it or not.

The BRF and its media tried to destroy the Sussexes, and then they tried to break them.  When that did not work, they targeted Meghan, and are still doing it now, but because of the few occasions that the Sussexes have spoken out publicly about their feelings on one or two things, the establishment has to go about things a little differently to the standard Royal playbook.  One that has been used over centuries, and whilst modernised slightly, it is nowhere near modern technology now, as they are discovering the hard way most weeks.

The standard way to have someone erased from your circle of power or friendships or work related power circles, is to try and destroy the target, in any way that one can.  If that does not work, the next phase is to destroy their mental health.  (I will come on to mention how that is not a good look for people who claim to have interest in this area, and some of whom are Patrons of Mental Health charities, and yet here we are deliberately operating in such a way, in conjunction with people on the invisible pay roll, playing wing positions trying to steer the targets away from the desired direction of travel).

When they fail to destroy, they then try to defame, the aim being that it will adversely portray your character and people won’t want to work with you.  Leading to less income and will force the target home, who will be grateful to live in opulence again, and play the game like everyone else.  The public will have already been conditioned to believe that is the rightful place to be, and how could one not want to live in opulence that someone else has paid for.  After all it is all about duty, isn’t it. Why cause one’s family all this stress, and at the very basic level, the UK public, or a section of it have fallen for the hype, that the UK population own the Royal family, because they pay for them.

The delusion of people who are financially worse off income wise than they were 15 years ago, and as of current inflation rate, the UK is in minus figures compared to all the other developed nations.  I have the statistics to show you all later., and the UK is heading into another phase of austerity, and people are already going without food and heat every week, but the mindset has been changed by years and years of propaganda, to feel proud that there is a Royal family at the helm, who live in such decadence that the Monarchy represents the UK as being more than OK, and the wealth on display when official banquets are held, and Jubilee celebrations last for days, and various dignitaries  from around the world are wined and dined, all the hungry and cold people in the UK, don’t mind, because the official ‘front of house’ fairy tale is telling the world, everything is fine.  Meanwhile the government ministers who agree such policies and the aristocracy who operate in the background, in the revolving doors between Monarchy and government, are not short of food, and never sit in cold rooms, and the law of the land protects the societal groups at the top from the odd publicly declared unrest about being cold and hungry from the societal groups at the middle to last chance saloon section of UK society.

The UK has reached the stage where it has managed to convince large swathes of the population that fraternising with convicted sex offenders, as well as suspected sex offenders (offences committed against children in both groups) is not seen as bad as a member of that family marrying a person of colour.  Members of the Carnival of so called Experts openly stating on camera, they would have preferred if Harry had married an English rose type, but seeing that he didn’t, it is not because of Meghans race that she is not popular.  All the things that that Meghan was criticised for, eg style of dress, interaction with the public, writing her own speeches, undertaking public speaking duties, her make up, one by one now, the Royals are mirroring the look, and in one case, it is like watching the movie Single White Female all over again, and even the Reporters now actually refer to the attire of this one individual as being identical to Meghan, in terms of the style and the colour and the cut, even down to the footwear.  The others are increasingly wearing the styles but choose different colour combinations.  So, it appears, it is only against protocol when the person of colour wears those things.  Yep, we understand the game completely. The other important factor is that there is more engagement on oline articles, when Meghan’s name is in the headline next to a photo of Kate.  When people click on the article, they are taken to an article that is 99.9% about Kate, but it contains a sentence or two about the matching outfits, and how glorious Kate looks.  The engagement figures are much lower, when it comes to any member of the BRF in the media, if there is no mention of one or both of the Sussexes.  That is part of the perception that sections of the UK public believe that the Sussexes give interviews almost daily to some media source or another.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The number of times that the Sussexes (together or as individuals) since 2016, remains at a single figure.  Each tabloid far exceeds that total for articles about the Sussexes each day!!!  For a couple who are no longer funded by taxpayers, and who stopped communicating with any UK tabloid in March 2020, these average total of 100 articles per day who every day tabloids write about more than the people (all the BRF combined) the UK does fund with taxes.  It is clear to see why the general public feel saturated with ridiculous articles about one or both of The Sussexes every day.  It is a deliberate ploy to cause resentment to grow against the couple, despite their very obvious success outside of the UK, and the awards they are being given for their work.

 

Coercive Control and the Law

I am not saying criminal activity in relation to the coerced control is the template for legal response to the type of activity that has been directed at Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex for the past 6 years.  What I am saying is that under the basic tenet of Human Rights legislation, there are many categories of law that run parallel to what is going on with the Sussexes, and where action has been taken against people who are not considered powerful or wealthy.  Yet when it comes to people in powerful positions and who have senior professional posts in the business or legal world, or are considered as influencers in certain areas of business or politics, then the world turns a blind eye until things become so serious, or what was once hidden comes to light, the powers that be are forced to respond in some way, even if it is decades too late for the victims of those activities.

When you read about these examples, if you replace “partner, ex partner, spouse” etc with all those groups of people who have abused the Sussexes, eg the Royal Family, the tabloid press Royal Reporters, Government by their silence are complicit, keyboard warriors, Meghan’s father and his adult children – they are behaving like an ex partner who refuses to accept that the marriage is over, and are dangerously obsessed with pursuing them and putting their lives at risk because they have dehumanised their target, all for the love of a pay cheques from media sources.

If on the rare occasion the abusers are powerful and/or wealthy, and their victims are in a similar category, there seems to be a position taken that say to anyone caring to watch, that it is best to let them sort it out between themselves. No need for us to be interested.  It is just rich folk doing their thing. If the victim is a person of colour, then it seems it matters even less.  The view seems to be, the victim has the financial means to pay for multiple legal actions, and can move home several times in order to try and remain safe, can afford to pay for top class security teams etc etc.

Everyone knows deep down if the perpetrators were POC, it rarely takes decades for legal professionals to step in.  If the victims are poor Caucasians and their abusers are wealthy and powerful etc, no one is interested, until the abusers have long since passed on.  The basic aspect of everyone is entitled to protection under the law, seems to be pushed to one side.  The danger with that is that victims are left to suffer, and if the abuse continues for years, the cost to the individuals concerned is more than financial, and therefore the damage to the authorities and the countries concerned is not easily repaired.

“Abusive men are just as likely to be lawyers, accountants and judges

as they are to be unemployed. It is about power and control.”

Sandra Horley CEO of Refuge.

 

Those of you who know my work and publications, know that I like to use academic theory and models to help show how many topics can be explained in a user friendly way.  I regard the treatment of Meghan and Harry, Meghan in particular like that of a person in a violent marriage.  The abuser continually trying to erode the self esteem of their victim, and telling them how they could be nothing without them etc., and to put fear in their minds about leaving.  When that victim manages to escape, the abuser then goes on the defensive, trying to justify their actions, and ultimately try to make life so difficult outside of the marital home that the victim returns and becomes compliant, and in fact inevitably the level of abuse is worse than before.

I have used the Kubler Ross 7 Stages of Grief Model in the past, to show how the British Royal Family, the Royal Reporters working for the tabloids, but who have an ‘invisible’ contract with the Monarchy to always give them positive press coverage, in return to access to the Royals for exclusive scoops etc. I include Government in the analogy, aristocracy and keyboard warriors in the frame.  It is a very useful model for a number of things.  Highly recommend you look it up, and also if you have time, read my article which maps categories from the model, to particular antics of the above groups.

Coercive Control and how it can apply to describing what has been and continues to be done against Harry and Meghan. “Experts have thus often used the non-injury model of “coercive control” to explain the dynamics of intimate partner violence. The term was first popularized in 2007 by the work of Dr. Evan Stark, who described coercive control as a pattern through which abusive partners–typically males–employ combinations of violence, intimidation, isolation, humiliation, and control”[i]   I list reference material and websites at the end of the articles, to help you on a journey of discovery of some of these topics.  I try to give you a user friendly starting point.[ii]I have done the same with this one.

Post Separation Control

  • Is a form of abuse, that a male ex partner uses to maintain power and control over a woman, long after the marriage/relationship is over. Gender can be either.  Think of all the groups I have mentioned, particularly the Royal Family, and its partners in the media, behaving as though they are trying to keep control over what Harry and Meghan do in life.  Still desperately trying to cling on to power over their actions.  The BRF never once anticipated that Harry would leave with his family.  The aim was clearly to destroy Meghan, in any way it panned out, and if she remained alive, she would get up and walk away.  No one thought that Harry would leave too.  The next step was to take away their security and to reveal their location in Canada, and then again in USA (Tyler Perry’s property).  Charles was responsible for the security leak and the details of their location, along with stopping funding early on in the 12 month transition period that the Royal family themselves insisted on having in the first place.  Charles was willing to place his own son in danger in an effort to force him home and to secure more years for the Monarchy.  They would never risk the life to the heir to the throne, but the “Spare” was expendable.  What a family. The irony of a black man, from an industry that the UK constantly malign as of no importance, stepped forward and provided security and a home for the Sussexes, and sent a private plane to collect the Sussex family from Canada and take them to the LA property, is not wasted on me.  Gives me joy every time I think about it.  God Bless Tyler Perry.  An angel on this earth.

Often when the abuser is in a position of power, the abuse is not physical – not least because of the potential for reputational damage.  The control is often “psychological and emotional terrorism”, which is harder to prove.

One example:- control tactics using the legal system to repeatedly drag women through expensive litigation, or launching a defamation campaign, in an attempt to silence or discredit the victim and to preserve the reputation of the abuser/s.

  • Think here of Meghan and her treatment by the Royal family and the media in particular. All of those tricks/tactics are clear to see, when you stand back and make comparisons with these proven academic models I am quoting and what has been happening to the Sussexes.  NB There is civil and criminal law already in place to deal with Coercive Control, and with my non legal mind, I fail to see how it can be too far a step to take, to apply the law after 6 years of abusive activity in various forms.  Never forget that Meghan had suicidal thoughts when she was pregnant with Archie.  We nearly had a 2nddeath in the Royal family under questionable circumstances, and with clear evidence of various strands of activity which was put in place to drive Meghan out of the family, by any means.
  • Stonewalling, gaslighting and threats of legal action, are all part of an abusers repertoire, they employ these and other tactics to retain power and control to ensure that you are prevented from exposing them.[iii]NB  Think here of the Royal family and the media.  Remember their behaviour before the Oprah interview even came out, and they are doing the same now, about a book that is still being written and will not be published until over 12 months time.  Only people who are guilty of less than good behaviour would be worried about a tv interview yet to air, or a book yet to be published.  The two groups doing the most ‘protesting’ hiding behind other labels are the family and its media.  Speaks volumes to me, and is all part of trying to desperately cling on to the control and the narrative, using a decades old playbook which is no match for the astute minds of the Sussexes, exhausting as it must be for Harry and Meghan.  I repeat, what are legal minds doing?  What has to occur for a trigger to move to action mode?

Women’s Aid [iv]

“Controlling behaviour is designed to make a person dependant by isolating them from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence and regulating their everyday behaviour.

  • Think here how Meghan was asked to make herself “less visible” .
  • Think here how Meghan was asked to be 50% of herself.
  • Think here how Meghan’s Passport and ID, credit cards, car keys etc were kept by HR. Which meant she would have to ask for them if needed.  They would know her every move.
  • Name removed from Archie’s Birth Certificate, only the Title remains. Harry’s full name and Title is still there.  All other Royal Wives have their name and Title on their children’s Birth Certificates – only Meghan has it had hers removed.
  • Meghan stayed in Frogmore Cottage once for 40 days without leaving it once, and still someone commented that she appeared too soon.

Like I stated previously, let’s explore the topics of domestic abuse including Coercive Control, and harassment.  Look at financial abuse too.  My list of references are just a starting point.  There are multiple sites out there, and all will tell you that laws exist for the prosecution of the abusers, no matter who they are.

Many grassroots organisations worked hard to ensure that coercive control became a criminal offence. This has marked a huge step forward in tackling domestic abuse. Now it is important  to make sure that everyone understands what it is.

Coercive control creates invisible chains and a sense of fear that pervades all elements of a victim’s life. It works to limit their human rights by depriving them of their liberty and reducing their ability for action. Experts like Dr Evan Stark liken coercive control to being taken hostage. As he says: “the victim becomes captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear.”

An extract from the Laura Richards website.  Details contained in my reference list at the end of this article.  I can see a number of experiences of things that have been done (that we know of) to Meghan whilst on UK soil and Canada and now in the Sussexes home in Montecito.  A very useful site with lots of resource material and information.  Here is one extract:-

“A number of feminist psychologists in the 1970s identified the domestic abuse victims that they worked with as living like hostages and coined the term ‘coercive control.’

This dangerous form of abuse relies on a range of behaviours or actions that can be very subtle and nuanced. The intention is to exploit and dominate and to ultimately deprive the victim of their most basic rights and needs. Over time, the victim may lose the very essence of being, the sense of who they are, their likes and dislikes, rendering their needs and desires irrelevant – hence hostage taking and living under an enforced regime”

If you look at the situation when Meghan married into the Royal family in the UK, there was no financial provision made for her.  None.  Harry was told that maybe Meghan should return to acting to bring in an income?? Meghan was sent on various royal assignments, including taking on patronages, and more than delivered in each one; travelled abroad whilst heavily pregnant with Archie at one point, and all done whilst paying for her own attire and people to help with that, though most of the time she did not have stylists on hand other than her friend Jessica.  Media continued to report on the cost of her clothing, implying that tax payers money was footing the Bill whilst knowing all that time, Meghan was paying for everything herself.  The absolute caucasity of it all.  Meghan commissioned clothes and footwear from designers in the countries she visited, all at her own expense.  Yet, when she needed medical intervention, the BRF refused stating that she was not an employee and that apart from anything else it would look bad on the Royal family. Really? It seems it was not deemed that Meghan was family either, because I am certain all other members of the family would have access to any kind of medical intervention.  As it was, a friend of Princess Diana was contacted by the Spencer family to assist Meghan.

I sincerely hope that Harry does talk about the impact of the abuse behind the gilded gates on his wife and family in his memoir publication on 10th Jan 2023.  I doubt he will say very much about family members, but I am hopeful there will be a time in the future, that he talks about acts and the complicity of a number of organisations and individuals, in the now obvious effort to prevent the marriage of the Sussexes, and then having failed at that, went out of their way to try and destroy Meghan’s character, and when that failed, went out of their way to destroy her mental health.  I do, however, want him to talk about the severe and traumatic impact of the cruelty of actions by BRF, usually by using other vessels to carry out the deeds.  Actions which continue now on USA soil by perpetrators based elsewhere. Not to mention the abject cruelty around the creation of Spares in the Royal family and the child protection services needed around that whole ideology.

Whilst on the subject of books written by, or in most cases, written by Royal Reporters in the style and with the content approved by whichever member of the Royal family commissioned it in the first place.  The said Royal receives favourable media coverage and the Reporter earns an extra income for their style of content. No fuss or outrage until Harry decides to write one.  His crime? He did not ask any of the Royal Reporter cabal to write it for him; no income for them, but freedom of expression for Harry who is no longer a senior working Royal. All the proceeds from the book are going to Sussex charities. We must not forget that the Sussexes offered to work for the Monarchy for 50% of the time, for free.  That offer was turned down. So here we are, with the Sussexes already global icons with a Foundation which has secured huge financial deals and in so doing has allowed Harry and Meghan to have self financing income streams, as well as set up and fund a wide range of humanitarian projects around the world – all in their first year of independence.  It is safe to say that their success has not gone down well, as all the key abusers wanted the Sussexes (well Harry at least) begging to be let back into the fold, as opposed to residing in a tent under a bridge somewhere.

Harry’s memoir is not even published yet, but the level of outrage and vitriol is embarrassing for all those complaining.  Just to put this outrage over one book into sensible context, on Amazon alone, there are 738 UK Royal biographies alone.  There are other categories pertaining to UK Royals.  At no point was there any outrage.  None of the Royal Reporters had anything negative to say about any of them.  True to form, however, anything that Harry or Meghan produce, they are treated like traitors.  One can’t help but think, that only people who may have done undesirable things, or know about undesirable things done by others within Palace walls, would be having apoplexy about a book that has not yet been published and wont be for at least another year.  All it has done, has garnered global attention, and guaranteed even higher sales than it possibly would have achieved, purely because now even more people worldwide are beginning to speculate what on earth did actually take place behind palace walls?  As per usual, the propaganda team of the Royal family gave themselves away within hours of the announcement of this forthcoming book.  Just like they did for a whole week before the Oprah interview with the Sussexes.  95% of what the Royal Reporters were blowing gaskets over for 7 days beforehand, were not mentioned in the interview, but immediately provided further receipts for the Sussexes.  Karma in motion.

The Sussexes are living proof (Diana was not so fortunate) of what happens when anyone expresses independent thought.  Slave and Master mentality is living and breathing within the Royal Cult that UK taxpayers fund.  This has to stop.  It is like a bounty has been placed on the heads of USA citizen family and the world is watching because it involves wealthy people.  If it was a wealthy black family doing all of this, it would not be still going on now 6 years down the line.

I think that this extract relating to new legislation approved in the State of California on 29th September 2020[v] is very useful in the current climate surrounding the Sussexes.  I have to keep reminding people that I am not legally trained, but from all the research I have done over the years with mainly women’s groups, and an element of personal experience, the treatment behind gilded gates, or by groups who act as Associates of the people behind those gates, who in turn have hired people themselves to carry out certain activities against the Sussexes, has gone way beyond a family asking for a family member to return back to the fold, without his wife and children.  Years down the line it is moved into a range of illegal activity and no one yet has come forward to call it what it is.  Coercive Control is one of the often unseen elements of the abuse, and harassment of the only person of colour to enter the UK Royal family.  The sheer volume of race hate inciting bile written in scores of articles every day in the UK is in itself a crime.  The Sussexes have not been afforded their basic Human Rights, and to date have had no protection under the law in terms of Human Rights legislation, at a national or international level.  After 6 years of such activity with no action taken to prevent the flow of hate and increased risk to the Sussex family, it is safe to say that only the International legal community can take the lead on this, with the conjunction of the USA.

3.1 SECTION 76 OF THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2015 – CONTROLLING OR COERCIVE BEHAVIOUR IN AN INTIMATE OR FAMILY RELATIONSHIP

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Prior to the introduction of this offence, case law indicated the difficulty in proving a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment within an intimate relationship (the Statutory Guidance cites the following cases – Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123 and Widdows [2011] EWCA Crim 1500).

The new offence, which does not have retrospective effect, came into force on 29 December 2015.

 

The Duality of UK Media and How it Reports on Different Sections of the Population

This is the style and culture of the UK media, both printed and televised, and this is the backdrop to a culture of isolationism, and treating people who are not considered sentient beings as acceptable to be treated without any respect.  To summarise, the UK treatment of refugees and also people from Commonwealth countries, are just two examples of the difference in treatment by the tabloids and the government in the UK.  When you hear about those two examples, then the subsequent treatment of Meghan marrying into the UK Royal Family will come as no surprise.  Even Harry I am sure never for one moment thought his family and country could operate in this way, but as he has said himself, the things he is learning and experiencing and seeing first hand since his marriage to Meghan has opened his eyes.  The fact that Harry speaks up about those experiences, and has in fact had to remove his wife and children away from the UK for their safety, lets the world know, that Harry understands now, and I doubt if he knew then what he knows now, he would have left the UK before March 2020.

The treatment of the women of Grenfell in the media was vastly different to the rest of the patronages. The treatment of commonwealth countries is different dependent upon skin colour.  The treatment of the only person of colour to enter the UK Royal family is vastly different to any other member who has married in.  The absolute daily onslaught by UK media on the Sussexes and in particular Meghan is in breach of so many areas of law, yet not one legal ‘expert’ in the UK has stepped up and challenged the UK stance, and for that matter the established International Forums usually cherry pick the nations where they intervene, and say nothing about the others.  I would argue that a high profile case such a member of the UK Royal family being treated so badly on UK soil and then on USA soil since 2016, is something that I find unjustifiable to be ignored.  Meghan and Harry’s treatment is the tip of a growing iceberg of people who are in no position to challenge their abusers, and who in some cases have taken their own lives out of despair, and others are heavily impacted by growing mental health issues.  The Duchess herself had suicidal ideation, and was refused assistance by the Royal Family because it would be embarrassing for the family??  The Sussexes miscarried a baby in the middle of a very nasty and insidious campaign of the content of reporting on the Sussexes, and when a Royal Reporter admitted on camera and in a podcast that they were in close contact with the Royal Human Resources team, and they were aware of Meghan’s suicidal ideation, rather than back down, the Royal Reporters doubled down on the onslaught.  What was the end game here?  Whether it was crushing spirit or end of life, none of them thought that Harry would take his family out of the toxic environment, and become independent from this cruel and abusive environment.

A group of us, have started a campaign, aimed at the International Legal Community for the updating of the new ways of abusive behaviour spreading via electronic means, and that abusers and their victims need not be in the same town or country to deliver their blows.  The incitement of hatred on people of all ages, has implications for all countries, not just those who appear as the face of the very obvious network which operates and funds it from a variety of sources and chains, that clearly are set up to hide the person at the top of the chain. Enough is enough.  Meghan and Harry are part of a much wider group of people who are suffering, and the global community needs to step up or step aside and let others take the reigns to tackle these new phenomenon of co-ordinated and financed groups and the social media platforms and channel owners who are making telephone number profits from inciting hatred and describing it as freedom of speech.  Time for action. Psychological methods are being utilised now, which enable abuse to reach most parts of the world, accessible by internet, foot or air.

The laws exist for a reason.  International laws exist for a reason.  If not, just disband all the international organisations who on paper have the power to intervene, or is it that they only intervene on less wealthy people’s behalf, or regimes who are abusive and who are also POC?  I have zero faith in the UK legal bodies who have chosen to protect themselves rather than take on the establishment.  If the international bodies are the same, then let’s all shut up shop and go home, and let the revolution begin, and natural selection take out those who are not popular.  Let’s recreate Mad Max or The Matrix or The Hunger Games in the modern age.

Ivy Barrow

20/11/22             First published 25/07/21   & Updated November 2022

PS/  I dedicate this song for all survivors of abuse.  It is one of many from Selena Gomez about surviving abuse.  This is one of my personal favourites.  The Song Title is aptly called “Rise”

 

 

 

REFERENCE SOURCES:-

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cruel-names-royals-courtiers-called-22418032

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/09/harry-meghan-royal-family-hrh

https://www.verywellmind.com/psychological-abuse-types-impact-and-coping-strategies-5323175

 

Useful Links:-

[ii] https://www.coercive-control.com/

[iii] https://www.coercive-control.com/hiddenassets

iiihttps://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship

https://www.laurarichards.co.uk/coercive-control/

California Approved a New Bill on Sept 29th 2020 including Coercive Control as part of the Domestic Violence legislation

[v] https://www.adzlaw.com/victim-advocacy/2020/10/06/new-ca-bill-to-codify-what-victims-and-experts-know-coercive-control-is-domestic-violence/

A Little Information on remarkable Laura Richards:–

Laura Richards, BSc, MSc, MBPsS

Laura is a renowned international expert on domestic violence, stalking, sexual violence, homicide and risk assessment. After a decade of analysing violent crime at New Scotland Yard Laura became the violence adviser to the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). Trained by world leaders as a criminal behavioural analyst at the Behavioural Analysis Unit, National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI and New Scotland Yard, Laura has applied her psychology degrees to analyse violent crime from a behavioural and preventative perspective. Laura has a BSc in Psychology and Sociology and an MSc in Forensic and Legal Psychology, and with a background in intelligence-led policing, has been the architect of law reform to better protect victims on six occasions.  Laura is Founder of Paladin, the world’s first National Stalking Advocacy Service. Paladin was set up following the highly successful All Party Parliamentary Stalking Law Reform Campaign spearheaded by Laura, which led to stalking becoming a criminal offence in 2012.

More recently Laura spearheaded the Domestic Violence Law Reform Campaign to criminalise coercive control. Laura helped draft the new law and the statutory guidance and developed and delivered the first training on the new law in the UK.

Dr Evan Stark

http://www.coercivecontrol.us/about-dr-evan-stark/

There are no adequate lines to summarise the work of Dr Evan Stark – who is a forensic social worker, author of Coercive Control (Oxford, 2007) and a lecturer who has taught at Yale and Rutgers University and held appointments at the University of Essex, Bristol University and the University of Edinburgh. Professor Stark’s award-winning book was the original source of the coercive control model when the United Kingdom’s Home Office widened the definition of domestic violence and he played a major role in the consultation that led to the drafting of the new Coercive Control law in the United Kingdom.  (FreedomProgramme.co.uk)

In the United States, Professor Stark, the world renowned expert on Coercive Control is consulted by state governments, domestic violence organizations and the media on this mostly unknown method in the United States of intimate partner abuse through controlling and psychological manipulation and terror.