Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

[Iamwhomiam]

"Distract" was the word you chose to use. If it was meant to be complimentary, why did you use "distract?" I sure wish you'd answer my question.

I usually get "carried away" when someone seems to think the behaviors of dark-skinned people are of greater concern than those of white-skinned people, that we should not pay attention to breaking news about white-skinned pedophiliacs while there's news breaking about dark-skinned pedophiliacs.

That is exactly what you did.

[jakell]

So was the article you linked to supposed to distract one's attention away from Savile or was the Savile article supposed to distract one's attention away from the article you lined to, Jakell?

Your posting sure distracted my attention away from the Savile story.

Yes, I noticed. I don't know why though, the point I made was brief and subtle and it seems you got carried away with that angle I recommended we avoid.

It needn't distract though, the two can be regarded as fairly complementary. If the two happen to coincide so closely again, I will probably remark on it.

"Distract" was the word you chose to use. If it was meant to be complimentary, why did you use "distract?" I sure wish you'd answer my question.

I usually get "carried away" when someone seems to think the behaviors of dark-skinned people are of greater concern than those of white-skinned people, that we should not pay attention to breaking news about white-skinned pedophiliacs while there's news breaking about dark-skinned pedophiliacs.

That is exactly what you did.

The angle I recommended we avoid was the one of race, and now you bring it up again. The issue can be broached without that, especially as it seems to cloud your vision. Put it aside.

You are starting to obsess somewhat (ie, 'get carried away'). I've made my point, which was fairly subtle, I see no need to dwell on it to this extent.

[Iamwhomiam]

You said you didn't know why I wrote what I wrote and seemed to misunderstand my comments, I felt it important to convey to you my motive, which I have done and done well.

Please do not deny being the party who introduced race into a Savile thread.

[jakell]

The issue can be broached without considering race.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I compared Rotherham to Savile's heyday, from which a host of patsies were hung out to dry, not Savile personally, although his case is clearly on the same institutional spectrum. And in both cases many enablers emerged unscathed

I never said the cases were the same - what are we trying to distract from here exactly? Joe and Iam you both seem to be tilting at windmills.

You weren't the one who said Saville was a convenient distraction from something else.

The institutionalised nature of these abuses is the most similar aspect of it but my understanding of jackell's comments were that those things were secondary.

and again, Saville (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract from an element of the large scale organised abuse that doesn't involve celebrities.

What element is he referring to?

[Joe Hillshoist]

The issue can be broached without considering race.

earlier...

and again, Saville (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract from an element of the large scale organised abuse that doesn't involve celebrities.

Wot element r u refurring 2?

Religion?

[jakell]

I compared Rotherham to Savile's heyday, from which a host of patsies were hung out to dry, not Savile personally, although his case is clearly on the same institutional spectrum. And in both cases many enablers emerged unscathed

I never said the cases were the same - what are we trying to distract from here exactly? Joe and Iam you both seem to be tilting at windmills.

You weren't the one who said Saville was a convenient distraction from something else.

The institutionalised nature of these abuses is the most similar aspect of it but my understanding of jackell's comments were that those things were secondary.

and again, Saville (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract from an element of the large scale organised abuse that doesn't involve celebrities.

What element is he referring to?

This particular case is a small part (an element) of a wider phenomenon. I'm sure you're aware of its extent.
That's what I meant by 'element'.

I've often wondered why these two issues have such varying coverage and awareness levels (even at RI), especially as they broke at more or less the same time. It seems to me that Saville is the one people find more comfortable, it's easier to think of elites (the other) doing this sort of thing, but not of ordinary folks** as in the case of Rotherham (and related cases).

I originally commented here because of the exact timing of these two stories, which has followed a similar pattern over the years.

Your remark about religion is apt and one could equally consider class as a marker. I offer these because people find race so problematic.


** Ordinary pyschopaths that is.

[tapitsbo]

Guruilla has made some interesting arguments that we're not really aware of the extent of organized abuse.

[Joe Hillshoist]

This particular case is a small part (an element) of a wider phenomenon. I'm sure you're aware of its extent.

I've often wondered why these two issues have such varying coverage and awareness levels (even at RI), especially as they broke at more or less the same time. It seems to me that Saville is the one people find more comfortable, it's easier to think of elites (the other) doing this sort of thing, but not of ordinary folks** as in the case of Rotherham (and related cases).

I originally commented here because of the exact timing of these two stories, which has followed a similar pattern over the years.

Your remark about religion is apt and one could equally consider class as a marker. I offer these because people find race so problematic.


** Ordinary pyschopaths that is.

Are you referring to any religion? Or a specific one?

Because the Rotherham case and the associated cases with perps of a similar demographic (non white Muslims) are used to ferment racial tension and nationalism. They are a prime example of othering and lead to terms like "rapefugees".

There is a clear link between Abrahamic religions and institutions that have access to vulnerable people and child abuse. But even limiting that to Abrahamic religions is a form of othering that denies the scope of the problem or suggests its only associated with religion, or one particular religion or family of religions, not with imbalances in power and the expression of and reinforcement of power in a mundane and "occult" way.

[tapitsbo]

I think that on the contrary there's been some incredible examination in recent times of similar cases clustering around groups that are explicitly atheist.

My understanding is that "othering" is an idea that comes from metaphysics and could be applied to virtually any situation. I seem to remember the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas having had a strong influence on the development of this. In practice, the concept of "othering" is generally used in a very limited context which happens to be the one you're using here. Since jakell has brought up class, we could also think about how British society "others" the large number of people who aren't part of the more privileged classes.

Yes there is some media - not exactly mainstream - which applies Muslim immigrants to a different, harsher standard, than for example rapists with a european background. I would imagine jakell, living in the UK as he does, might feel injured by the fact that a double standard has been demonstrably applied in the opposite direction in Rotherham and in many other situations. Of course there are many voices who would claim Rotherham et al. were entirely justified as a form of collective punishment.

Using abusive terms like "rapefugees" is simply not acceptable in mainstream society. Once again it seems the fear is that including these events in a larger picture of institutional abuses immediately beckons a slippery slope where people start yelling about "rapefugees" - surely not unrelated to the fears that contributed to the coverup in Rotherham itself.

[jakell]

This particular case is a small part (an element) of a wider phenomenon. I'm sure you're aware of its extent.

I've often wondered why these two issues have such varying coverage and awareness levels (even at RI), especially as they broke at more or less the same time. It seems to me that Saville is the one people find more comfortable, it's easier to think of elites (the other) doing this sort of thing, but not of ordinary folks** as in the case of Rotherham (and related cases).

I originally commented here because of the exact timing of these two stories, which has followed a similar pattern over the years.

Your remark about religion is apt and one could equally consider class as a marker. I offer these because people find race so problematic.


** Ordinary pyschopaths that is.

Are you referring to any religion? Or a specific one?

Because the Rotherham case and the associated cases with perps of a similar demographic (non white Muslims) are used to ferment racial tension and nationalism. They are a prime example of othering and lead to terms like "rapefugees".

There is a clear link between Abrahamic religions and institutions that have access to vulnerable people and child abuse. But even limiting that to Abrahamic religions is a form of othering that denies the scope of the problem or suggests its only associated with religion, or one particular religion or family of religions, not with imbalances in power and the expression of and reinforcement of power in a mundane and "occult" way.

I suppose it could be any religion, like you say, the Abrahamic ones seem to lend themselves well to this, but this could be due to our familiarity with them.

[tapitsbo]

I also suppose there may have been cases where Abrahamic religions may have contributed or intervened against child abuse in certain contexts, which really complicates an attempt to understand these issues with a simple formula

[jakell]

I think that on the contrary there's been some incredible examination in recent times of similar cases clustering around groups that are explicitly atheist.

My understanding is that "othering" is an idea that comes from metaphysics and could be applied to virtually any situation. I seem to remember the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas having had a strong influence on the development of this. In practice, the concept of "othering" is generally used in a very limited context which happens to be the one you're using here. Since jakell has brought up class, we could also think about how British society "others" the large number of people who aren't part of the more privileged classes.

Yes there is some media - not exactly mainstream - which applies Muslim immigrants to a different, harsher standard, than for example rapists with a european background. I would imagine jakell, living in the UK as he does, might feel injured by the fact that a double standard has been demonstrably applied in the opposite direction in Rotherham and in many other situations.

Using abusive terms like "rapefugees" is simply not acceptable in mainstream society. Once again it seems the fear is that including these events in a larger picture of institutional abuses immediately beckons a slippery slope where people start yelling about "rapefugees" - surely not unrelated to the fears that contributed to the coverup in Rotherham itself.

I might feel injured, but with the amount of pressure put upon police and social work to subordinate itself to political correctness, there have been no real surprises. Maybe in my younger years.

I was slightly taken aback by it cropping up in so many other cities (like I said, "if it was just Rotherham..."), but then people do network more readily nowadays, and Britain is a small country, travelling is easy.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Guruilla has made some interesting arguments that we're not really aware of the extent of organized abuse.

Have you heard about the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse inj Australia. Its into institutional responses, including cover ups and actual organised abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Com ... c_hearings

That link is a partial list of the public hearings into instances of abuse within institutions and the responses, almost always unsatisfactory or worse. This thing is basically the top of the tip of the iceberg. I dunno what will come of this royal commission, but its got so much publicity that it won't be a total failure.

[guruilla]

It seems to me that Saville is the one people find more comfortable, it's easier to think of elites (the other) doing this sort of thing, but not of ordinary folks** as in the case of Rotherham (and related cases).

I made a comment to someone yesterday that seems to be relevant here:

I can’t help but envision a wide spectrum ranging from tightly controlled, laboratory experiments (the archetypal MKULTRA set & setting) to reservation schools in Canada, Catholic schools with systemic abuse, or childcare homes in the UK (and daycare centers in the US), where the abuse occurring seems far more random and not at all “experimental” (or results-driven) yet seems to emerge from the same principles and methods and to all combine toward more or less the same end. This is also to do, I think, with the overlap between an organized program (aka worldwide conspiracy) and a consistent psychological reaction to trauma that creates more or less the exact same behaviors, rituals, and abuses, see Lloyd de Mause:

After reading over a hundred descriptions of what cults – both contemporary and historical – do to children, the first conclusion that I came to was that they all do pretty much the same things. They weren’t following a worldwide conspiracy; most of them were just neighborhood sadists torturing kids for sexual pleasure, people who never read a book on Satanism in their lives. Yet they all spontaneously follow a ritual whose elements and even details are the same: they take little children and tie them up; put them In cages and tunnels; beat and torture them; turn them upside down and hold them in water; cut, stab and rape them; force them to eat their feces and drink their urine and blood; and disembowel, dismember and kill them while ejaculating. They seemed to me to be acting out a very specific drama. What could such a bizarre collection of acts mean?

Cult abuse, like all sadistic acts, individual or group, is a sexual perversion whose purpose is achieving orgasm by means of a defense against severe fears of disintegration and engulfment. According to Socarides, sadistic release is achieved by inflicting upon a scapegoat childhood traumas – particularly preverbal experiences with a frightening, cruel or neglectful mother – inflicting rather than passively unduring pain and destruction.(19) Sadists live their daily lives full of terrible anxieties about being independent and active. Any success in their lives Is terribly fearful, producing regression to infancy and a desire to merge with mommy. But merging means losing one’s self, being annihilated. To avoid this, it is necessary to inflict on someone else all the traumas one has had plus all the fantasies of revenge against the persecuting parents. Only by reenacting cultic rituals can these deeply regressed individuals avoid castration and engulfment fears and reassure themselves of their potency and separateness.

https://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/arti ... hohistory/

I also suppose there may have been cases where Abrahamic religions may have contributed or intervened against child abuse in certain contexts, which really complicates an attempt to understand these issues with a simple formula

From Prisoner of Infinity part 2, also relevant?

The very act of believing in the possibility of transcendence defines the child in contrast to and opposition with the father. This inevitably creates in the (male) child a negative identity, a self defined in opposition to others. The child needs either to outdo its father or become the opposite of him (as in my case, and I suspect Strieber’s, Kurtzweil’s, Castaneda’s, et al) by believing in non-material perspectives, spirituality, occultism, UFOs, sorcery, or impossible (but not unthinkable) technological solutions. This necessary belief, or crucial fiction, creates a psychic line of defense against the possibility of becoming the father, i.e., falling prey to the same depersonalizing, soul-crushing forces of “reality”—be it the reality of God or of Government (or both)—which made the father powerless to rescue the child. These are the forces that “stole” the father from the child (and the father from the mother) to begin with. They are also the forces which the father “sold” the child into, as an offering, as Abraham offered Isaac to Jehovah, or Jacob’s sons sold Joseph into slavery, to the “machine,” to Mammon.