Anna Holtzman is the Alex Jones of the #MeToo Movement

It is 2020 and we still have people pushing the debunked Repressed Memory pseudoscience from the 1980s, but it fits perfectly with the mindless #MeToo narrative. If we automatically believe all accusers rather than the the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, then we risk many innocent people having their lives completely destroyed by a false accusation. That is the true danger of movements like #MeToo. They simply do not want to believe anyone can make a false allegation

I'm not going to publish the entire crap piece -- it is long and publishing it is like trying to unclog a sewer. There's just too much shit to unpack. She goes into Alex Jones levels of conspiracy theories like MKUltra, coverups of Freud's theories on child abuse, and that proof of innocence does not mean innocence.

This crackpot article has popped up on Google News Feeds, so apparently, Google has low standards as to what constitutes as "news" these days.

And to think, a number of people in this Anti-Registry Movement are foolish enough to believe these crackpots can be reasoned with. 

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/harvey-weinsteins-false-memory-defense-and-its-shocking-origin-story-kpkn/

Harvey Weinstein’s ‘False Memory’ Defense and its Shocking Origin Story How powerful sex offenders manipulated the field of psychology.
May 15, 2020 by Anna Holtzman

During the Harvey Weinstein rape trial, the defense called to the stand expert witness Elizabeth Loftus, a researcher on the phenomenon of so-called “false memory.” This legal tactic, explicitly designed to discredit the testimony of sexual abuse survivors, has a sordid and astonishing history dating back to the 1980s and 90s, an era known to the psychology field as the “memory wars.”

The “memory wars” were essentially a war on sexual abuse survivors who dared to speak out in an era before #METOO. More specifically, the “memory wars” targeted a particular group of sexual abuse victims: Incest survivors.

Incest is one of the most common forms of sexual abuse, and yet — despite the gains of the #METOO movement — it remains conspicuously missing from the conversation. This is largely because the “false memory” defense that was created to silence incest survivors has somehow persisted, both in the public consciousness and in the field of psychology itself.

This essay will examine the history of the “false memory” defense and its far-ranging impacts. To fully explore the issue, readers will have to open their minds to the possibility that the field of modern psychology is entrenched in pseudoscientific propaganda created by alleged child abusers, that some of Freud’s most enduring theories were based on protecting incest perpetrators, and that during the Cold War, the CIA engaged in widespread sexual abuse of children. It sounds fantastical, I know. But, so did the Weinstein case when it first broke. I hope you’ll bear with me.

... So how does Project MKUltra connect to the “false memory” propaganda campaign? One of the MKUltra intelligence-hacking experiments involved a “honey trap” strategy whereby prostitutes were trained to extract information from intelligence officers using sex. Some of these sex workers were consenting adults. Others were sex trafficked children that MKUltra researchers gained access to under the pretext of medical treatment....

The “False Accusations” Deception

The notion that legal exoneration of an alleged perpetrator is proof of a “false accusation” resulting from a “false memory.”

Unless you are a men’s rights activist or living under a rock, anyone in the age of #METOO should understand that legal exoneration is not proof that sexual abuse did not occur. The legal system is rigged against sexual abuse victims, as has been shown time and time again — even in cases where irrefutable physical evidence has been present.

The “Due Process” Deception

The notion that sexual abuse memories should be treated as courtroom accusations and thus regarded with suspicion — even in a therapeutic setting — in order to honor due process for the accused.

While blanket skepticism certainly makes sense in a courtroom setting, it is not consistent with the general goals or attitudes of psychotherapy. Just imagine how a therapy session might go if the therapist viewed a client’s every memory with skepticism — childhood birthdays, the loss of a beloved pet, a fight with a best friend. Generally, therapists are trained to respond to clients’ memories with acknowledgment, empathy and curiosity. Only on the topic of childhood sexual abuse are therapists warned to be wary of “false memories.”

What we know about childhood sexual abuse is that — like adult sexual abuse — it occurs at epidemic rates and is grossly underreported, under-prosecuted and routinely disbelieved. Warning therapists to be wary of “false” abuse memories reinforces the status quo of disbelieving sexual abuse survivors....

The “satanic panic” deception is designed to make abuse survivors appear “crazy” or “hysterical” — a tactic that deflects attention from perpetrators by discrediting their victims.

While the term “satanic ritual abuse” may sound out-there, it refers to a very real and commonplace phenomenon. The more ordinary term for this phenomenon is “organized abuse.” Put simply, it is the practice of organized groups perpetrating abuse as a condoned, intentional and habitual activity. ...

A theory, espoused by Peter Levine and others, that when an individual experiences unexplained emotional distress, the mind may create or latch onto a “false memory” of incest out of a “desperate” need to explain the distress.

The term “desperate” as used here is a dog whistle for sexism — similar to words like “hysterical” that cast women’s emotional reactions to oppression and gaslighting as “crazy.”...

I don’t question the fact that memories can come back spontaneously, that details can be forgotten, or even that memories of abuse can be triggered by various cues many years later.
Based on well-known literature by both trauma experts and survivors, the above is a fairly sound description of repressed memory. It’s hard to understand, then, Loftus’s insistence that repressed memory is a myth.

That is because Loftus’s definition of repressed memory is not derived from trauma experts or survivors, but rather from the population that she is steeped in: Alleged perpetrators.