If there were only one channel on the television, nobody would watch it. It would too obviously be about brainwashing. The illusion of choice presented by 60 channels, all presenting seemingly different, but thematically connected shows, is far more effective brainwashing.
Also, what's with this guy's non sequitur about Enid Blyton being banned from the BBC. He raises it in the first paragraph, then never readdresses it.
Here's a "conspiracy" theory that might be entertaining.
If you're an elite pederast, would you really want to promote children's literature that regularly features children banding together, investigating, and defeating adult malefactors? It might encourage your victims to take action against you. I read Blyton's works as a child and many of the stories I read were about 9-13 year old kids taking on criminals when adult authority figures were too dumb or lazy to be bothered.
I suspect that Blyton's anti-authoritarianism and message of child empowerment might have played a role in her ban.
I live in rural Vermont where most homes only get CBS, so you will forgive my flat denial of your claim that nobody would watch it: it's always on in most households. My own experience directly contradicts your hypothetical, is all.
Edit: ...also, speaking on non-hypotheticals, wasn't there an extended period in UK media history where the BBC was quite literally the only channel?
When I was a kid television was almost explicitly about brainwashing (South Africa in the 1980s). There was one channel in Afrikaans and English, and a second in Bantu languages. Almost all programming was domestically produced, news was heavily and notoriously censored, and the broadcasting corporation was famous for being run by right-wing ideologues close to the National Party. It didn't stop everyone who could afford a set from watching.
You're right that the current diffuseness of the celebrity and entertainment landscapes serves the purposes of control, though, even if it wasn't planned like that.
Wombaticus Rex wrote:I live in rural Vermont where most homes only get CBS, so you will forgive my flat denial of your claim that nobody would watch it: it's always on in most households. My own experience directly contradicts your hypothetical, is all.
Edit: ...also, speaking on non-hypotheticals, wasn't there an extended period in UK media history where the BBC was quite literally the only channel?
Yeah from 1927 (founding of the BBC) to 1955 (start of ITV) the BBC had the only national radio and TV channels.
Jim certainly appears to have fixed lots of stuff for people who's boots the rest of us are supposed to be licking;
JIMMY SAVILE was so close to Prince Charles that he advised him on the appointment of one of his most senior aides, The Sunday Times has learnt.
In an indication of the power and privilege extended to Savile by the royal family, Charles asked the DJ and television presenter for advice before selecting Sir Christopher Airy to be his private secretary in 1990.
Savile and Charles met Airy, a former major-general, before he was offered the post, according to an informed source.
The revelation shows the close friendship between the heir to the throne and the television presenter, who the prince grew to rely on in the late 1980s and early 1990s
Anybody here got any real idea how this really works? Or are we all just shit-scared denialists ?
Are we going to sit around pretending that how this really works, isn't how it really works?
Wombaticus, whats youre take on this?
I dont mean to sound personal, but I for one am sick of being asked to refocus in the wrong direction wrt how this whole dirty peadophilia business works.
If it wasnt fucking approved ,endorsed and protected from the top, you can rest assured, (IMHO at least) it wouldnt be even as close to as popular and prevalent as it is below.
This whole business goes way beyond sexually inquisitive teenagers and only the village idiot would deny that;
Meanwhile, a woman has come forward to claim she was Savile's youngest victim – saying she was just eight when the sex predator abused her.
The alleged victim, who is set to sue the late DJ's £4.3million estate, says the pervert molested her as she lay helpless as a patient at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, in Buckinghamshire, while she was recovering after an operation in 1986.
Therefore, what kind of human being, in their right mind would submit children to such suffering, other than those who appear to consider it their "god-given" right?
Sure, we can list any number of social issues associated with such behaviour, but you sure as hell wouldnt want to go to prison, a place where many victims of "social issues" reside, as a child-murderer or serious paedophile
Unfortunately , the first link is both a sunday times article and a "subscription only" further read. But hey, who knows, perhaps this whole saga is actually busting stuff up big time.
With regard to "nobody," that's what I get for using a blanket generalization. I'm less concerned about old farts with one foot in the grave religiously watching CBS every night than I am about teenagers and twentysomethings going on about all the shows that they follow. If all that existed were one channel, one could legitimately expect the youth to revolt against having to watch it. But with multiple channels (all owned by a few cartels with identical values) creating the illusion of choice, the youth are less likely to revolt against the practice of watching television.
The question is, why do people watch television? Have they become accustomed to having some authority figure babbling at them, telling them what to think? Where might have they acquired that habit from? The school, where they are babbled at all day long? The church, where they are babbled at every Sunday? Their parents babbling at them? The car radio babbling at them? Their employeres babbling at them? The modern person goes from one babbler to the next all day long.
Many people watch television because they cannot bear to be alone with their own thoughts. But how did this come about? Did media saturation make it harder for people to become accustomed to being alone?
As for direct experiences, I didn't watch a lot television when I lived overseas because there were only a few channels, they were in foreign languages of which I was unfamiliar, and the programming was all adult, and boring. I didn't want to watch some guy in suit read off a piece of paper in Italian or German, or watch a ball being kicked around a green field, or watch people in funny costumes talk at each other while standing still.
So instead I went outside, played, and read books. Later on, this was somewhat mitigated when I discovered a violent anime style cartoon, and then became enthralled with it . . . because it was DESIGNED to appeal to my childish sensibilities.
When I moved to the USA, I was discouraged from straying too far from the home, due to fears of crime, so I wound up watching more TV, also due in part that I didn't have many friends, in part because I found my peers to be crass materialists who went on all day about what consumer goods they werer purchasing with their parents money like it was something to be proud of. Even though I found the programming propagandistic, the sheer variety kept me tuned in. And don't get me started on the techno-crack of video-games.
But I digress.
The real issue: a small oligarchy ordering everyone else's lives for their own selfish interests, and then gaslighting everyone else into thinking that they themselves are to blame, when they are real just the products of a massive near-inescapable onslaught of addictive programming.
This article, while informative, engaged in that gaslighting process.
jlaw172364 wrote:The real issue: a small oligarchy ordering everyone else's lives for their own selfish interests, and then gaslighting everyone else into thinking that they themselves are to blame, when they are real just the products of a massive near-inescapable onslaught of addictive programming.
This article, while informative, engaged in that gaslighting process.
WHALAM. Beautifully stated, and undeniably so.
I doubt O'Hagan was doing it consciously, but I seldom notice it when I participate in victim-blaming and groupthink either....
"I doubt O'Hagan was doing it consciously, but I seldom notice it when I participate in victim-blaming and groupthink either...."
Dude, you must have read my mind, because I wondered the same thing after I made the above post.
However, I can't help but think, knowing what I know about government and big business influence on media, that there aren't people sitting around editing these turds into the punch-bowl as part of the journalist's employment agreement, assuming the journalist isn't ideologically captured enough to produce them on his own.
And with the Internet moving at the speed of light, it could conceivably be done with the original writers themselves being unaware of any changes. I think I read something on Cryptogon a few years ago that suggested that possibility, where people in different regions would see different versions of articles.
I'm sure there are many other explanations too.
Deadlines pressures and content requirements might also play a role.
The fact that the Waterhouse report went as far as it did is highly commendable, and obviously long overdue. But the trouble with any investigation which tries to break through a 'cult of silence' is the lingering doubts that it will ever get down to the whole full truth of the matter. Waterhouse is probably merely the tip of the iceberg.
The report suggests there is 'no evidence' that Freemasonry had anything to do with the scandal. Yet there were two inadequate and inconclusive police inquiries, including one into a senior officer, by a force in North Wales riddled with freemasons.
There was a consistent lack of initiative on the part of the local Clwyd CC in the face of overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn, ostensibly because the council insurers advised against any action. This in itself insults democracy in a way that borders on the criminal. By a policy of non-action, both the police and the council became embroiled in a blatant cover-up.
Anyone who has even vaguely become acquainted with paedophilia knows very well that they will go to the ends of the earth to keep their activities absolutely secret. They are professional experts in covering their tracks.
In the early nineties, in the now defunct Scallywag magazine, which I founded, we interviewed in some depth twelve former inmates at Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring, which the tribunal acknowledges existed. Most of these interviews were extremely harrowing and disturbing, but were gently and sensitively conducted over pub lunches where the victim could relax. We subsequently persuaded ten of them to make sworn affidavits which we proposed to use as back up to half a dozen paedophile stories we later published.
Two of these young men, who had been 14-years-old at the time, swore they had been not only introduced to the paedophile ring operating in the Crest Hotel in Wrexham but had later been escorted on three or four occasions to an address in Pimlico where they were further abused.
We took them separately to Pimlico and asked them to point out the building where this had taken place. They were both positive in their identification. It turned out to be the private flat of a well known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the 'cash for questions' scandal. At the time we ran a story entitled 'Boys for Questions' and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.
The lobbyist was a notorious 'queen' who specialised in gay parties with a 'political mix' in the Pimlico area - most convenient to the Commons - and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children's homes other than North Wales.
There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names.
Subsequently, over a rent dispute which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.
All of a sudden very private information, some of it even privileged between ourselves and our lawyer during the John Major libel action, was being published in selected, pro-Conservative sections of the media.
Subsequently, during a court case initiated by Lewis, I was able in my defence to seek discovery of documents and asked to see the seized files. The paedophile papers were missing. This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.
I believe that the secrecy the Establishment wraps around itself easily equals that of the paedophiles. They really do look after each other and quite professionally cover their tracks.
The real trouble about exposing paedophiles is that former victims of child abuse make lousy witnesses. By the very nature of the abuse, when they are rudely shoved out into the wide world (one of the witnesses, Stephen Messham, for example, was released on his sixteenth birthday on Christmas day after two years of abuse, and had to sleep rough on the streets for four and a half months), they are often deeply psychologically disturbed.
Some of the extreme cases commit suicide, many more were sexually disorientated in the worst possible way. Some became gay prostitutes, others drug addicts, and in nearly every case, at some stage, they needed lengthy counselling. Marriages quickly disintegrated in psychological turmoil and a lot of former victims had real difficulties raising their own children. There are very few victims of child abuse who come out of it without deep scars.
It was all very well for us to take statements from former victims in the cosy atmosphere of a pub lunch, but put them up against an agile and eminent QC whose sole task is to discredit them, and they quickly crumble, even break down in tears. Many former victims now have criminal records of some kind, owing almost exclusively to the abuse itself, and the barrister will brutally exploit this as evidence that the witness is unreliable and tainted. Faced with the choice of a clearly neurotic young man who quickly falls down in the witness box, and a smooth, experienced, erudite and often highly respected culprit, juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.
I watched it in the now famous Court 13 at the High Court during the libel action between former Supt. Gordon Anglesey and Private Eye (and others) when, despite the fact that under cross examination, Anglesey had to admit that his evidence did not correspond with his own notebooks, the 'other side' subsequently tore the five main prosecution witnesses to pieces in a monumental act of judicial harassment. Like the whole story of child abuse in North Wales and elsewhere, it broke my heart.
Simon Regan (deceased) was editor of Scallywag Magazine
They were both positive in their identification. It turned out to be the private flat of a well known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the 'cash for questions' scandal. At the time we ran a story entitled 'Boys for Questions' and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.
The lobbyist was a notorious 'queen' who specialised in gay parties with a 'political mix' in the Pimlico area - most convenient to the Commons - and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square.
For those of us without the British "Libel and Sarcasm" decoder rings, this would be Ian Bramwell Greer, no?
Greer's cultivation of MPs, who in due course became ministers, had an exponential effect. If businessmen could see how senior his links were within the Conservative Party, they were more than likely to sign up themselves. As for the politicians, they were susceptible to peer influence in the heady days of Thatcherism which encouraged conspicuous consumption. As one lobbyist put it: "A lot of MPs will be checking their diaries to see how many times they were entertained."
What marked Mr Greer out most was his cash. "Most of the companies were making filthy amounts of money in the 1980s," said one lobbying source. "Fees were just extraordinary - pounds 10,000 a month for a parliamentary monitoring service which basically required one person to cut up bits of Hansard." Ian Greer Associates was privately owned and could therefore plough back its large profits into the business. There were no big other shareholders to answer to.
That politicians and their aides like to be taken to lunch is hardly new or exceptional. Mr Greer, however, went further. His parties were the most lavish and talked about. Jealous rumours circulated about a Greer Christmas gift list. We now know that this was the tip of the iceberg. Hampers from Harrods, furniture from Peter Jones and other goodies changed hands as did used notes in brown envelopes. Introduction fees for new business were claimed. Those who took them, according to one source, included Sir Peter Morrison, then an oil minister. In the high tide of the free- market years of Thatcherism there seemed to be precious few constraints.
How many Koch puppets do you think are in service primarily due to sexual blackmail? Just a for instance.
Staff were worked hard by Mr Greer, a bachelor workaholic who insists on early starts and bleeps employees late at night. The atmosphere inside the Westminster office (above which Mr Greer has a flat) was, according to one source who visited, highly individualistic. Employees were seated at identical desks, each with leather blotters and gold-coloured pen stands and male staff were encouraged to wear Hermes ties. The overall effect was "camp Dickensian".
But the pay was good and those who returned the boss's loyalty were treated well. Even among former members of staff, few are willing to speak out against him.
I think the cult of pederasty goes well beyond Freemasonry. I read reports of it occuring within the Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, and I'm sure if I dug around, I'd find reports of it popping up elsewhere. Anyone here remember reading about the Cult of Davidito?
And then of course, our philosophical friends, the Ancient Greeks had it engrained into their culture to the point of it being a cultural norm, and it pops repeatedly in literary references across cultures. The common law age for marriage used to be twelve until maybe the end of the 19th century. It was also supposedly rampant across families of all economic backgrounds, according to the works of Freud.
Since it is now not a cultural norm, but considered so morally repugnant, that even hardened criminals will murder incarcerated child molesters (probably in part to feel as though their lives have some sense of moral righteousness), it has been driven underground to the point where certain radical factions of child molesters operate like cells of clandestine operatives, and engage in all manner of crimes to keep themselves out of prison, namely the kidnapping of children least likely to be missed, and then their murder to eliminate the evidence.
I also suspect that pederasty now fills the role previously filled by homosexuality, as a tool used by the cryptocracy to blackmail political vassals (elected officials, key bureaucrats, potential trouble-makers such as high-level dissidents) and keep them weak and pliant. Remember that scene in The Godfather where the senator wakes up with the dead "girl" in his bed?
Since the State cannot legalize this practice that it deems morally repugnant, it attempts to eliminate or neutralize the practitioners by building a police state apparatus. However, the cryptocracy which uses pederasty as a blackmail tool and the radical child molester faction, who are the proverbial strange political bedfellows, can then use this police state apparatus to better accomplish their objective of targeting children who won't be missed, while at the same time eschewing the children of the privileged, who might then be provoked into investigating the conspiracy, unraveling it, and then taking violent retributive action. Thus, they created a system where they get to have their cake and eat it too.
Quite frankly, I'm not optimistic that this problem will go away anytime soon because it is so deeply rooted in the public belief of a problematized child sexuality, as well as the stratification of society into cohorts homogenized by age to the point where millions of people have been programmed by the school system mostly to fraternize with people their own age until they reach their mid to late twenties, eschewing older or younger people as "uncool," and thus keeping potentially dangerous and subversive knowledge strictly within the realm of the elders, to whom the younger are forever in thrall. In my opinion, the child molesters are basically acting out the most extreme version of what society already does to them, namely groom them from an early age for a life as an exploited commodity.
With its new subtext, in light of all the current allegations, the arrests and the suspected depths this investigation may sink to, This Is Your Life becomes a portal into a completely different reality. If you start to analyse a couple of moments, you immediately want to stop. It becomes so grotesque it makes you wince, whether any internal speculations you entertain are justified or not. So that you don’t have to go through that process, here are some details, prised from within the Icke-zone and reinterpreted in plain English.
Well, he's not kidding there. Look at this moment from an episode of This Is Your Life featuring Gary Glitter, at 0.38.
How did this stuff just get passed over?
The woman talking is Tessa Dahl, the daughter of Roald Dahl, the children's author who famously didn't like children much (shades of Savile's attitude there, and old Roald was certainly a strange fellow, but I haven't heard any shady rumours about him along those lines). For reasons unknown Gary Glitter lived in their house at some point. Glitter obviously thinks she is about to announce on television that he behaved inappropriately toward her sisters' "adolescent schoolfriends", and tries to shush her. That means he must know that she knows about it, and he also thinks she would just come out with it casually on TV as a lighthearted anecdote - which suggests that not only was his behaviour widely known about in that household, as elsewhere, but it was treated as northing more than a personal quirk, an oddity - at least among those who were "in the know".
Like Savile said in his defence of Glitter: "Well, of course, we all knew Gary was that way." So just how accepted was it? By all of them?
Some personal things I've been hearing about lately. Apparently my Aunt took part in a fun-run with Jimmy Savile back in the nineties, up in Fort William. He was always hanging around up there. She says he was odd and a bit annoying, and that he physically stank, but nobody at the time would've thought him capable of what's now come out. Of course, she was way too old for him at the time, being in her late forties.
A friend of a friend used to work in the sex offenders wing of a secure hospital up here, and I'm told the inmates had put a prominent poster of Savile on the wall of the main room. When she asked why they had a poster of Jimmy Savile on the wall, of all people, one of the inmates answered: "He's the King."
This was long before the more recent revelations, but it seems like they already knew he was one of their own, and he was openly admired in these paedophile circles while the rest of the country went on thinking he was a great man, a charitable celebrity, an annoyance, or an irrelevance.
The only other paedophile I have ever heard of being described as "The King" by his own kind (apart from Jacko) was Sidney Cooke, a.k.a 'Hissing Sid'. I think he was mentioned in the Nick Davies article. A more complete monster would be hard to imagine, and if Savile was on that level then there will be a lot worse still to come out. The police believe Cooke and his gang may have been responsible for the deaths of at least nine boys, and the creation of snuff films for limited circulation amongst their own circles.
Kudos to kenoma for being early with the identification of Robert McA, his name has been connected to the North Wales scandal for a long time, but it is very much a part of the public conciousness now.
Sorry for long post, it is nowhere near as long as it should be.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
....oh there you are....thanks for those snippets - I'm very piqued by Savile's links to Caledonia..
..what forums are you following this on ?
I've only got time to follow & post on the Icke one - well over 600 pages & 1.5m views - its like catching Niagra in a paper-cup at the moment - also a fair number of defectors crossing the wire from mumsnet & ds on there....!
Col. Quisp wrote: I don't recommend reading the entire blog posts cited. They are either silly or sickening. I just pulled out the references to the Wests. There was speculation that he had been involved in some satanic ritual killings of children in a barn in Gloucester...
Fred also famously had the "Black Magic Bar" in his Cromwell Street house, where serving policemen were known to pop by for a drink. He also showed - mainstream, though still illegal - porn films in the basement (the same basement where he killed and dismembered his victims, and where some of his children slept) to his workmates, his brothers, and the aforementioned policemen.
One of the more worrying things he said to his son when he was hinting at a larger ring of sadistic murderers was that there were a lot of them in Bristol. "If you think I'm bad, there's lots worse in Bristol." It just seems a strange place to pick if he was making it up (since he was a compulsive liar) because... why would anybody choose Bristol? If he was trying to spin an exciting yarn to make himself sound more important than he was then why not London?
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
