The “Boo-Hoo-Hoo Man” And How He Is Connected To Wireless Electromagnetic Frequency Assault Torture
One of the elements involved with my experience of wireless electromagnetic frequency assault torture was the occurrence of what I called “The Boo-Hoo-Hoo Man! Alongside the presence of intense wireless electromagnetic frequency assault was what appeared to be a male voice positioned at a second story level, near an open window, who would communicate in angry, mocking tone the words “Boo-Hoo-Hoo!” While I would perform work outside and around my house this man would yell these words down to me. This man behaved like an immature parent mocking his crying child. This happened to me on several occasions while I was performing work outside my house.
Another element to wireless electromagnetic frequency assault torture is the presence of a certain level of frequency that causes to induce an emotional psychological state that makes me feel worthless, not good enough, not valuable, unimportant, and causes me to cry. In short, the wireless electromagnetic frequency of assault torture effects my mood, thereby inducing mood altering states free of narcotics and pharmaceuticals and alcohol. It is connected to my increased desire to drink which will float a narrative desirable to the perpetrator as weak and shameful. It has also caused me disorientation and to walk off balanced which would contribute to a narrative desirable to the perpetrator of these assaults such as “She’s sick.” These mental states that wireless electromagnetic frequency assault torture can induce in the mind also induce stupor, excitation, lower conscious awareness, sleep, wakefulness, sadness, hostility, and feelings of vulnerability, to name a few.
The presence of “The Boo-Hoo-Hoo Man” informs me that an infantile psychological state is present and what appears to be a possible male perpetrator - praying on women who want to make them feel bad about themselves, their own bodies, their feminine identity. This man maybe holding a grudge against a female “Object-Other.” And, this female other is “off limits” to him, meaning he can’t carry out his sadistic fantasies on her. So, through surrogacy, he selects female targets. This female “Object-Other” presents a dual fold connection. One, to the unconscious maternal body from preoedipal and or oedipal symbolic space - receiving a mal-informed enigmatic message from this primal scene which connects to the second female other (wife or other hated female object in his orbit) who is now “off limits” to the perpetrator. Then, through surrogacy, he selects another female object to carry out his fantasies of sadistic torture. It is his creation of an artificial universe, a perversion, a permutation based in wish fulfillment and object possession and object transgression by breaking down the barriers which separate man from woman and woman from man and man from the female’s offspring, the woman’s children (Chassefeut-Smirgel, 1984). This creation is his Frankenstein. “Perversity is a lying relation to reality, turning a blind eye to truth… at the heart of the perverse relation to reality is an inability to bear self-annihilating feelings that arise from not being able to rely on another for recognition, containment, and care (Harris & Botticelli, et. al., 2010, pg. 370).
The unarticulated message of this perverse arrangement tying perpetrator to victim via a wireless electromagnetic frequency tether is the creation of a perverse anal sadistic universe where the “superior-inferior” arrangement known as the “inverse unconscious paradigm” masquerades the perpetrator as “Superior-Omnipotent-Being” but is actually rooted in an infantile debased communication connected to childhood abuse, neglect, and want. The superego is a paternal creation created by the father in Freudian psychology. It acts as a liberator to all the unwanted pieces connecting the perpetrator to inferior weakness and femininity. With the loss of the mother, and the little boys move toward identification and idealization of the paternal phallus, to use it as a “liberator” to evacuate all these undesirable and unwanted feelings into the “Object-Other” makes a perverse sense with a perverse kind of logic. In the mind of the perpetrator who has formulated this perverse solution it seems a just and logical means to met out punishments. It furthers the ideology that feminine weakness is shameful. It wages and orchestrated attack on a feminine forms of power, debunking its reasons, it’s legitimacy, it’s claims. By repressing it, controlling it, debasing it to support the narrative of HIS (perpetrator’s) superior phallic strength and that this is the ONLY desirable and valued commodity to be possessed. One must ask the question “Whose bad objects are we anyway?” And, “Who is “The Boo-Hoo-Hoo Man”?”
Sources:
Aeschylus. (1986) The Oresteian Trilogy. Harmondsworth. Penquin.
Butler, J. (1997) The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in subjection. Stanford, CA. Stanford University.
Chasseguet-Smirgel, J. (1984) Creativity and Perversion. London. Free Association Books.
Chodorow, Nancy J. (2012). Individualizing Gender and Sexuality: Theory and pPractice. Relational Perspective Book Series, Volume 53. New York. Routledge.
Davies, J.M. “Whose Bad Objects Are We Anyway?: Repetition and our elusive love affair with evil. Psychoanalytic Dialogues. (2004) 14(6):711–732
First Do No Harm: The paradoxical encounters of psychoanalysis, warmaking, and resistance. Eds., Adrienne Harris and Steven Botticelli. Relational Perspective Books Series. Vol. 45. New York. Routledge.
Jacobs, A. (2007) On Matricide: Myth Psychoanalysis and the Law of the Mother. New York. Columbia University Press.
Klein, M. (1959) Our adult world and its roots and infancy. In the writings of Melanie Klein, Volume 3. London: Hogarth Press (1984).
Niedecken, D. The Primal Scene and Symbol Formation. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. (2016) 97(3): 665-683.
Stark, E. (2007) Coercive Control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York. Oxford University Press.
Van Brunt, Brian; Murphy, Amy; Pascara-Kovac, Lisa. Crance, Gina-Lyn. “Early Identifications of Grooming and Targeting and Predatory Sexual Behavior on College Campuses.” Violence and Gender. (2019). Volume 6. No. 1.
Walker, Michelle Boulous (1998) Philosophy and the Maternal Body: Reading silence. New York. Routledge.
Weiland, Christina. Matricide and Destructiveness: Infantile anxieties and technological culture. British Journal of Psychotherapy 12, No. 3 (1996): 300–313.
Winnicott, D. W. (1971) The use of the object and relating through identification. In Playing and Reality. Harmondsworth. Penguin. (1980).
