Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im firmly believe that like, most of the worlds government has at one point participated in that ring or another.
Every politician, no matter how good, has done something horrible to get into power, even the ones i like.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

nfe wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Do any of you remember the conspiracy about senior conservatives in the UK operating a peadophila ring, it came mostly from the Jimmy Saville scandal.... I always thought it was a little suspicious it was swept under the carpet quite quickly in the media, with a small amount of air time given to it being false allegations.

Operation Yewtree led to 19 arrests and 7 convictions and launched Operations Ravine, Hydrant, and Midland. Midland and Yewtree were massively high profile, received huge coverage in flagship news programmes, and were repeatedly tackled both in parliament and in select committees.

What I am referring to was highlighted because of Yewtree and Midland, but were seperate to those specific allegations/inquires. Carl Beech was not involved as a source of the specific Westminster Dossier, though it was reported as being affiliated by the media though they were not (as it would be, both are about paedophiles operating in Westminster).

We also now know that Cyril Smith had a questionable past which has only been partly investigated posthumously. There will be inevitable questions of who knew, even if nobody important did, and if nobody important did there will be no means to prove that.

Not all such cases are as ambiguous, but even unambiguous cases are not investigated properly.
My main concern here is that members of the establishment certain did know about Saville, and not enough has been done to expose this and bring former executives to account. Furthermore the high profile investigations ito Sir Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis are believed by some to be a smokescreen to protect senior members of the BBC. Sir Cliff was treated very poorly by the press particularly the BBC and it was made difficult for him to clear his name. Dave Lee Travis has gone on record claiming the abortive investigation into himself was times to draw attention away from BBC executives.

I believe this with good reason. First John Lydon (Johnny Rotten) attempted to warn people but his commentary doing so was censored and only aired after Saville's death. Second I was at boarding school with the son of a BBC executive in the late 70's, I remember being among a group of boys talking about the popular 'Jim'll Fix It' show, the BBC executives son was very sullen and when I asked him what he would want Jim to fix he said very firmly that he would have nothing to do with Jimmy Saville, and warned me not to either. When I asked why he said so, when I reacted with disbelief he doubled down, saying that his father had asked him to warn other boys about Saville. I was still confused by this as I couldn't believe Saville could do nasty things to boys without being stopped, it made no sense, but I remember the serious tone of the warning at the back of my mind until decades later when Saville died and his past was revealed.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im firmly believe that like, most of the worlds government has at one point participated in that ring or another.
Every politician, no matter how good, has done something horrible to get into power, even the ones i like.

That seems awefully bleak.

I don't necessarily believe to the same extent, but politics and politicians are corrupted almost universally, there are very few who generally are in politics/positions of power for the right reasons, and a lot of the time, those that do get involved for noble reasons end up being processed by the system... Power corrupts after all.

It's literally embedded within major political parties in the UK to persuade against voting or acting outside of party policy, that's why each party has a whip after all.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I don't necessarily believe to the same extent, but politics and politicians are corrupted almost universally, there are very few who generally are in politics/positions of power for the right reasons, and a lot of the time, those that do get involved for noble reasons end up being processed by the system... Power corrupts after all.

It's literally embedded within major political parties in the UK to persuade against voting or acting outside of party policy, that's why each party has a whip after all.

Wellp and here i thought the representative System should represent the people voting locally for a representative and not the Party ?

Not Online!!! wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I don't necessarily believe to the same extent, but politics and politicians are corrupted almost universally, there are very few who generally are in politics/positions of power for the right reasons, and a lot of the time, those that do get involved for noble reasons end up being processed by the system... Power corrupts after all.

It's literally embedded within major political parties in the UK to persuade against voting or acting outside of party policy, that's why each party has a whip after all.

Wellp and here i thought the representative System should represent the people voting locally for a representative and not the Party ?

Local representation is a funny one, mainly because a fair amount of MP's don't actually reside or come from the constituency they represent, meaning they actual have about as much intimate knowledge of local issues as anyone else from outside the area. This becomes less of an issue the more times an MP is re-elected but yeah, that's just one small issue of many with local representation.

In regards to the use of the party whip, to be fair it's only usually ever enforced with big votes that are crux in terms of policy. Voting outside of party policy is not impossible, but you will be harming your future chances of senior roles within the party by doing so, which when circling back to my point that politics corrupts, that is exactly how it occurs, because if an MP does have higher aspirations, they must vote in a fashion that their own ideology may be in conflict with.

Somedays i wonder how such Systems can claim to be democratic.....

Because it is a two way street; the voters are as incompetent at selecting candidates as the candidates are at being decent humans.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because it is a two way street; the voters are as incompetent at selecting candidates as the candidates are at being decent humans.

?!?
How can you be a competent voter when Parties can just entrench themselves thanks to the System and don't have to fear the voter?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I don't necessarily believe to the same extent, but politics and politicians are corrupted almost universally, there are very few who generally are in politics/positions of power for the right reasons, and a lot of the time, those that do get involved for noble reasons end up being processed by the system... Power corrupts after all.

It's literally embedded within major political parties in the UK to persuade against voting or acting outside of party policy, that's why each party has a whip after all.

I do not believe power corrupts. Not at all, Power Reveals.
I just think that those that seek power tend to not do it for the right reasons.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because it is a two way street; the voters are as incompetent at selecting candidates as the candidates are at being decent humans.

?!?
How can you be a competent voter when Parties can just entrench themselves thanks to the System and don't have to fear the voter?

In the words of Socrates:

"If you are given a choice between liking a physicians who tells you to excercise and eat healthy but not great tasting things and a sweet shop owner who encourages you to eat sweets...

Lets just say that we have a lot of sweet owners in power"

For the record Socrates lamented democracy and vote eligibility by virtue of birth alone towards the end of his years apparently.
Make of that what you will.

But what if this is indeed a simulation and we are the top tier meta player base?
Surely its time for a nerf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJzJtm7OfdQ

Ohh I missed tier Zoo..

Not Online!!! wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because it is a two way street; the voters are as incompetent at selecting candidates as the candidates are at being decent humans.

?!?
How can you be a competent voter when Parties can just entrench themselves thanks to the System and don't have to fear the voter?

Can you show me some evidence that these candidates are able to hold onto their positions even if they lose a re-election bid?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I don't necessarily believe to the same extent, but politics and politicians are corrupted almost universally, there are very few who generally are in politics/positions of power for the right reasons, and a lot of the time, those that do get involved for noble reasons end up being processed by the system... Power corrupts after all.

It's literally embedded within major political parties in the UK to persuade against voting or acting outside of party policy, that's why each party has a whip after all.

I do not believe power corrupts. Not at all, Power Reveals.
I just think that those that seek power tend to not do it for the right reasons.

I agree. Also, the average person may not be morally bankrupt but they certainly default on loans when it matters.

I meant the overarching structures, they surely can still vote someone out but that doesn't Change These Parties.

The overarching structures are simply an accumulation of long term trends. If candidates that buck the party line are continually elected you can bet the party line is going to change. At it does, as we have seen demonstrated in dramatic fashion.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im firmly believe that like, most of the worlds government has at one point participated in that ring or another.
Every politician, no matter how good, has done something horrible to get into power, even the ones i like.

I recall a couple of "documentary" type series that brought up certain conspiracies as they relate to secret societies and various "behind closed doors" activities. One of them brings up Benjamin Franklin got up to all kinds of stuff, and there was apparently some burgeoning conspiracy theorists way back then because he was seen heading to this "notorious" secret society hideout (it was a bit like, Avengers Tower, or the Fantastic Four tower. . . like, the worst kept "secret" spot for superheroes to be hiding out). . ANYHOW, in some of those instances, particularly the episode relating to Benjamin Franklin, it turned out that really, he just got roped in to a group of libertines and they were going to their "secret" hide out for massive, massive orgies.

I quote hotsauceman, and bring up the "organized orgies" thing with Ben because while I think that there are a large number of people who are in political power who are also part of "secret societies", I happen to think that, if the truth got out about many of these, we'd find out it was similar to the old party animal's happenings and its far more "boring" than a group of uber powerful people meeting in secret to plot global events. . . In regards to pedo rings, that, I don't think is quite as pervasive, but at the same time if ANY name comes up as a powerful person who participated with it, I wouldn't be surprised.

Things like large orgy groups would, IMO, be much easier to "hide" from public view than anything that results in significant political policy shift, especially if those policies lead to military conflict and deaths of various populations.

Also fits with how humans have always been driven towards that sort of thing when the cost & consequence is suitably low.

Like....

The Naughty Hellfire Club?

Hellfire Club is documented, and it was pretty much wealthy people doing lots and lots of......well.....procreation practice, shall we call it?

We see shades of it in the modern day, at least to some degree. Look up David Cameron and Pigs Head.

The (actually plausible, but not necessarily true) theory is that people from wealth undergo embarrassing entry (oooer) ‘rituals’, to provide those behind the scenes with compromising material.

Is this actually true. Or is it just University students to whom money is no matter being Bloody Students* to the nth degree? I honestly don’t know.

As I mentioned above, it’s plausible....but that doesn’t make it true.

*not to be confused with run of the mill students. There is a difference. I’ll explain it over PM if anyone wants to know.

I was only previously aware of two versions of bloody students;

the so young, so pure...

or

the ones its okay to hit with snooker balls in a sock

but 20 year old plus UK comedy references aside I suspect most of the antics ascribed to docs version are mostly at best half truths as bloke falls asleep under table or coked up posho underwhelms partner isnt quite so legendary

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Like....

The Naughty Hellfire Club?

Hellfire Club is documented, and it was pretty much wealthy people doing lots and lots of......well.....procreation practice, shall we call it?

We see shades of it in the modern day, at least to some degree. Look up David Cameron and Pigs Head.

The (actually plausible, but not necessarily true) theory is that people from wealth undergo embarrassing entry (oooer) ‘rituals’, to provide those behind the scenes with compromising material.

Is this actually true. Or is it just University students to whom money is no matter being Bloody Students* to the nth degree? I honestly don’t know.

As I mentioned above, it’s plausible....but that doesn’t make it true.

*not to be confused with run of the mill students. There is a difference. I’ll explain it over PM if anyone wants to know.

One could argue that if some sort of "cabal" / "elite command structure" existed it stands to reason they would have exactly nthis structure in place.

Want to control somebody? Have a photo or video of them doing some illegal/extremely immoral acts. Then you can dangle it in front of them if they dont want to play ball.

I used to think the lolita express /Epstein's R&%e island was a bolony conspiracy theory.
Now we know..

So if that is true what on earth is the whole thing they do with the Owl statue and the wierd noises? Human sacrifice ? Some other bizarre ritual ?

I think its plausible that any degree of imaginable or unimaginable psychotic and abhorrent behaviour is taking place. If Liberian warlords are cannibalising people to get spiritual powers today, and human sacrifice/execution has been taken place through history I see no reason why degenerated abhorrent extreme psychopaths are not in positions of wealth, power and possible immunity from prosecution doing this sort of stuff. After all, if you have untold billions is it out of the realm of possibility that you can just make enough people and things "dissapear".

Once you go down this rabbit hole though it just doesn't end and you end up like a certain someone believing people being are actual demons, lizard people, goblins and or extra dimensional what nots..

But what if indeed we are being farmed for our emotions by some sort of other dimensional being? What if fear predators are real? And that is what you access when you DMT..
Maybe tzeench is feasting..

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The Naughty Hellfire Club?

Hellfire Club is documented, and it was pretty much wealthy people doing lots and lots of......well.....procreation practice, shall we call it?

Maybe?? Lol, it has been a bit since I saw the documentaries, which is why the names of groups/societies is escaping me atm. . .

My own personal theory on these sorts of clubs: We now know that, once a person's wealth reaches a certain point, we know a couple of things: 1, there's no earthly way they could possibly spend it all. 2, modern researchers now believe there's some "disorder" at work where the only aim in life is the accumulation of more wealth. . . Well, on the first point, my personal theory is that, due to the fact that these ultra wealthy/ultra powerful people, who cannot possibly spend their way to "happiness", attempt to find "joy" in other ways, and engaging in clandestine sexy-time clubs that violate social norms is one way to do that. While I'm sure there are groups like the Hellfire Club may still exist today, doing legal but naughty things, we also know (a la Epstein) that some get up to some illegal and naughty things.

That is a good point; rich people aren't mentally human in the same sense the rest of us are.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is a good point; rich people aren't mentally human in the same sense the rest of us are.

sure, and they smell Off Parfums when they drop one...

I hear if you stab em caviar comes out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Like....

The Naughty Hellfire Club?

Hellfire Club is documented, and it was pretty much wealthy people doing lots and lots of......well.....procreation practice, shall we call it?

We see shades of it in the modern day, at least to some degree. Look up David Cameron and Pigs Head.

The (actually plausible, but not necessarily true) theory is that people from wealth undergo embarrassing entry (oooer) ‘rituals’, to provide those behind the scenes with compromising material.

Is this actually true. Or is it just University students to whom money is no matter being Bloody Students* to the nth degree? I honestly don’t know.

As I mentioned above, it’s plausible....but that doesn’t make it true.

*not to be confused with run of the mill students. There is a difference. I’ll explain it over PM if anyone wants to know.

Ohh explain it to me!!!!

But as to that, I don't think it's a conspiracy to run the world, I just think govt official and rich people do alot of shady gak
Like it it came out that Trump, Koch Brothers, and Clinton's hunted the poor on Epstein's island.....would we be surprised?

I don’t think it’s even that nefarious.

Yes, the ongoing Epstein horror shows that wealthy people are sometimes shielded from justice.

But we must all bear in mind that those born into wealth tend to move in their own circles.

Consider. Wealthy couple have a kid. They send that kid to an excellent private school, because they can afford to, and the education is seen as superior to state school.

So from a very young age, that kid is only interacting with people from a similar background. The parents will also interact with each other. This may lead to joint ventures if the parents are involved in industry etc.

They form a clique of wealth, privilege and networking.

Poorer people kind of do the same, but without the background wealth, can’t really get the same advantage.

Note I am note criticising here, just explaining. I have my own thoughts as to the justice of it all, but those are inherently political, so not for Dakka.

For a lighter take on it? The Young Ones covered it with their usual panache decades ago. Language warning!

holly hell, what did the phone masts ever do to us?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don’t think it’s even that nefarious.

Yes, the ongoing Epstein horror shows that wealthy people are sometimes shielded from justice.

But we must all bear in mind that those born into wealth tend to move in their own circles.

Consider. Wealthy couple have a kid. They send that kid to an excellent private school, because they can afford to, and the education is seen as superior to state school.

So from a very young age, that kid is only interacting with people from a similar background. The parents will also interact with each other. This may lead to joint ventures if the parents are involved in industry etc.

They form a clique of wealth, privilege and networking.

Poorer people kind of do the same, but without the background wealth, can’t really get the same advantage.

Note I am note criticising here, just explaining. I have my own thoughts as to the justice of it all, but those are inherently political, so not for Dakka.

For a lighter take on it? The Young Ones covered it with their usual panache decades ago. Language warning!

I mean that is why i personally have a problem with private education. It all pretty much exists for two reasons. to keep you kid from learning things you might not want them to(like sending them to catholic school) or too make sure they stay in their own little bubble of influenece and gak like that.

I couldn’t possibly comment without delving into sociology and therefore politics

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don’t think it’s even that nefarious.

Yes, the ongoing Epstein horror shows that wealthy people are sometimes shielded from justice.

But we must all bear in mind that those born into wealth tend to move in their own circles.

Consider. Wealthy couple have a kid. They send that kid to an excellent private school, because they can afford to, and the education is seen as superior to state school.

So from a very young age, that kid is only interacting with people from a similar background. The parents will also interact with each other. This may lead to joint ventures if the parents are involved in industry etc.

They form a clique of wealth, privilege and networking.

Poorer people kind of do the same, but without the background wealth, can’t really get the same advantage.

Note I am note criticising here, just explaining. I have my own thoughts as to the justice of it all, but those are inherently political, so not for Dakka.

For a lighter take on it? The Young Ones covered it with their usual panache decades ago. Language warning!

I mean that is why i personally have a problem with private education. It all pretty much exists for two reasons. to keep you kid from learning things you might not want them to(like sending them to catholic school) or too make sure they stay in their own little bubble of influenece and gak like that.

you see, funnily enough it turned out the excact opposite over here, teaching in rural catholic kantons was often halfways delegated to the church, but that ended in a whole slew of really wierd demmands, like , direct democracy and more expenses for the schooling system, etc.
And that has to do with the difference probably of the segregating nature by class, rather then via religion.

private schools that just rich kids are on are pretty much an issue regardless not to mention bought educational titles...

So, how Long until people state that the Explosion in Beirut was an Inside job?