uk, pedo death cult or weird custody case?

[tapitsbo]

I'd have to disagree with you on this one, Wombaticus Rex

This subject is of quite significant interest to the "masses", regardless of how obscured their awareness or the expression thereof is

[Wombaticus Rex]

I'd have to disagree with you on this one, Wombaticus Rex

This subject is of quite significant interest to the "masses", regardless of how obscured their awareness or the expression thereof is

Really? You mean beyond the prurient aspects?

I don't see it. Americans are fine with child poverty, so are the British. Americans are fine with refugees starving to death, families being bombed. I know anyone speaking English will say they Care About The Children, because it's verboten to say you don't, but those are just mandatory motions.

If it wasn't for the Savile Flood of posthumous revelations and the recent left-right combo of True Detective Season 1 and the Vice short on Ponchatoula, most of my friends and family would still assume I was a morbidly insane lunatic conspiracy theorist.

I'm sympathetic to meta-level arguments that our true condition is of the most intense subconscious interest to everyone, even the most dissociated sleepwalkers among us, but what I mean is that statistically, few people are comfortable even thinking about this kind of material. The specific allegations being discussed here are not part of The National Conversation anywhere on Earth. A daycare in Florida from the 1980's is better known than this case, and barring the release of incontrovertible evidence in support of those allegations, that won't change.

I just thought it was funny: here we are in the woods alone, and someone said "Everyone is laughing at you, not with you."

Nobody was laughing at the time.

[tapitsbo]

Sure, people aren't aware or don't care but I think that's largely because shit's so well obscured. More and more people seem to be thinking about it especially in the UK. I guess what I meant is people aren't aware and blase, they're unaware (or revolted to thought-stopping levels), as you say. People are okay with atrocities they don't see close-ups of, it's true. But wave this stuff under their nose and nausea will usually be guaranteed (I hope?)

Yeah the laughter bit is a bit spoopy isn't it?

[Jerky]

Wombat, I think you need to wander beyond the confines of this board. There are literally THOUSANDS of SRA fanboys and fangirls frothing at the mouth over the so-called Hampstead Cult "revelations". You're far from alone, or in any kind of elite, rarefied air, here.

J

[tapitsbo]

I think "fandom" isn't the right concept for people so digusted they can't look away

whatever the degree of verification involved in this instance.

And the interest goes beyond the prurient stuff; even if de Mause's statistics are right there's a massive demographic that isn't exactly ho-hum about child abuse.

The psy-ops making efforts at discussing or addressing these issues are very effective though, that I acknowledge, for sure

[Jerky]

I chose those words -- fanboys and fangirls -- very carefully, and with very specific intent.

Read this very intriguing analysis:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivis ... scinating/

J

[tapitsbo]

Yeah, the evangelical Satan stuff that I thought had been basically judged to be quite contaminated the psy-ops/obfuscation around organized abuse by those who have tried to understand the original "Satanic Panic", right?

This case has been publicized by the courts as someone mentioned in this thread - evangelical Satan nuts are irrelevant except as an inappropriate, distracting simile for people concerned and curious about this case you're seemingly so loath to see conversation about here.

[guruilla]

this case you're seemingly so loath to see conversation about here.

Which is very much the relevant question viz a viz Jerky: why would someone continuously participate in a conversation if the sole intention is to disrupt & invalidate it?

This isn't meant as a rhetorical question.

[brainpanhandler]

this case you're seemingly so loath to see conversation about here.

Which is very much the relevant question viz a viz Jerky: why would someone continuously participate in a conversation if the sole intention is to disrupt & invalidate it?

Because it hasn't been disrupted enough yet?

I just realized I'm eating some beef jerky.

Anyway, this isn't about Jerky McJerkmeister.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Wombat, I think you need to wander beyond the confines of this board. There are literally THOUSANDS of ...

As long as we're offering advice: spend some time grappling with statistics. Seriously, I'm not saying this in a dismissive way. Taking statistics courses has changed the way I think considerably.

"Literally thousands" is equal to "literally nothing" on a planet with over a billion English speaking primates. At least, I think so. Then again, I've never been anywhere but Rigorous Intuition, so take that with a grain of salt.

[seemslikeadream]

[divideandconquer]

I'd have to disagree with you on this one, Wombaticus Rex

This subject is of quite significant interest to the "masses", regardless of how obscured their awareness or the expression thereof is

Really? You mean beyond the prurient aspects?

I don't see it. Americans are fine with child poverty, so are the British. Americans are fine with refugees starving to death, families being bombed. I know anyone speaking English will say they Care About The Children, because it's verboten to say you don't, but those are just mandatory motions.

If it wasn't for the Savile Flood of posthumous revelations and the recent left-right combo of True Detective Season 1 and the Vice short on Ponchatoula, most of my friends and family would still assume I was a morbidly insane lunatic conspiracy theorist.

I'm sympathetic to meta-level arguments that our true condition is of the most intense subconscious interest to everyone, even the most dissociated sleepwalkers among us, but what I mean is that statistically, few people are comfortable even thinking about this kind of material. The specific allegations being discussed here are not part of The National Conversation anywhere on Earth. A daycare in Florida from the 1980's is better known than this case, and barring the release of incontrovertible evidence in support of those allegations, that won't change.

I just thought it was funny: here we are in the woods alone, and someone said "Everyone is laughing at you, not with you."

Nobody was laughing at the time.

Citizens of first world nations are conditioned to accept child poverty, war atrocities, and refugees from third world nations, etc., because they're led to believe that they are the "good guys", that on some level, people in these terrible circumstances, whether they reside in their own nation or third-world nations, somehow deserve their plight.

They're--we're-- led to believe that our nations are pouring our hard-earned dollars/euros/pounds into rescuing/helping, so there must be something wrong with people who can't pull themselves out of their horrible circumstances. This is especially true of “pull ourselves up by our bootstrap” Americans who have no tolerance for people who can't, well, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, particularly when its their hard-earned dollars supposedly given in assistance. In other words, American, British, Germans, etc., are "fine with it" because they truly believe they're leaders are, if anything, providing too much assistance. What's wrong with these people??

It's this myth that keeps people from caring. It's this myth that keeps people from believing that wealthy and powerful men and women, not only don't give a fuck about the less fortunate, but prevents them from believing that their pedestaled powerful and wealthy class deliberately create these horrendous conditions and then exploit its most vulnerable and innocent victims for their most evil personal use and profit,

The bottom line is that we are so conditioned into equating power and wealth--especially white power and wealth-- with a certain level of virtue that stories like these just can't be true. Only the low-class, marginalized, and on occasion, the obviously insane individual is capable of despicable and evil acts such as this.

[tapitsbo]

It's definitely true that, for example, disappeared indigenous people are easy for most people to turn a blind eye to where I live in Canada. The idea that they might be being disappeared into the hands of establishment figures is something that still has to be studiously hushed up as much as it is studiously ignored.

Thinking about the Rotherham case makes me realize that WRex is much more right than I'd felt a few posts ago. This was exploitation on a massive scale, fully publicized, and the response was a collective shrug.

[guruilla]

The bottom line is that we are so conditioned into equating power and wealth--especially white power and wealth-- with a certain level of virtue that stories like these just can't be true. Only the low-class, marginalized, and on occasion, the obviously insane individual is capable of despicable and evil acts such as this.

I think this is valid and there's a lot more to be said around this (such as for example the basic survival NEED to trust and believe in our "caregivers" and rulers because it is not safe not to do so: we unconsciously ALIGN with the power because otherwise we risk being on the wrong side and becoming victims of it. This is so basic it predates society, I think.

Are people here familiar with Tjeerd Andringa's model of the Kakistocracy, the rule of the worst? I discovered it via the Corbett Report, which I now consider a tainted source, but that doesn't mean everything that comes through it is dodgy and at least as a counter-model to the one D & C is citing (the default setting of power = virtue), it's worth a look.

http://www.ai.rug.nl/~tjeerd/

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview ... istocracy/

[zangtang]

i find that his voice grates a bit, but can anyone tell me why the perception of 'corbett report' has swung 180 degrees in a couple of months or less?
- i never did catch what was tainting the bathwater but i'm pretty sure a baby is being thrown out with it.

please enlighten.....or refer me to the er......damage

(possibly off-topic but bin meaning to ask next time he came up.......)