• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Queen "disappears" Canadian Mohawk children, Maloney outs Prince Charles, Dunblane

Bollocks, with all due respect ;)

It seems the bunker mentality is addling your faculties somewhat ;)

I would agree with you on large parts of what you have been saying. It's the scattershot approach with seemingly little or no actual connections being made beyond the most tenuous ones that I'm objecting to. Conflation does not equal correlation let alone causation. That doesn't mean the whole thing doesn't stink in many ways, just that you've made no real case beyond posting lots of essentially causally unrelated stuff that covers the same general topic of child abuse and possible cover-ups.
 
It seems the bunker mentality is addling your faculties somewhat ;)

... apologies Shambs, that was directed at Vurtual & was meant in jest, you ninjad in there before I'd finished my usual lengthy post.

I would agree with you on large parts of what you have been saying. It's the scattershot approach with seemingly little or no actual connections being made beyond the most tenuous ones that I'm objecting to. Conflation does not equal correlation let alone causation. That doesn't mean the whole thing doesn't stink in many ways, just that you've made no real case beyond posting lots of essentially causally unrelated stuff that covers the same general topic of child abuse and possible cover-ups.

Sure, it's all circumstantial, I'm not an investigator, all I'm doing is trying to make sense of why it is that the royal family are the link that holds all this stuff together. All I can do is find more & more circumstantial evidence until I either get bored or somebody find conclusive proof that the royal family have been fitted up for this by some conspiracy against them.

There might be plenty of "evidence", if what I've dug up can be construed as evidence, that there's some connection between the royal family & organised abuse being covered up. But I haven't found much evidence for a conspiracy against the royals, & yes, I am looking into that as well.

There's a Kiwi author of controversial books about the royal family called Greg Hallet who claims to be in touch with a "Shadow Monarchy" of Princes & Princesses & Queens & Duchesses etc who would be the royal family if not for the break in the genetic succsession proven recently by the discovery & genetic work on King Richard III's skeleton. Who's to say this lot aren't engaged in some global conspiracy to tie the royal family into this sort of child abuse thing to discredit them & make way for a new royal family..?

... in the news recently. King Richard III skeleton gene work - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30281333
 
Bollocks, with all due respect ;) Provided you're not a complete dullard, if your nose tells ya it smells something fishy, it's probably because something fishy smells. Maybe I'm smelling fish & adding it up to an aquarium, but I am definitely smelling fish...

Yes i'm agreeing with you (i agree with everyone though ;)) - i'm saying that's how i judge the stuff, whether the conspiracy or the site that is publishing it, but acknowledging that my personal biases will probably affect my nose, so it's probably unfair to someone to not check it via the long-winded, fact checking method (i'm lazy though). Intuition is powerful, but it can be skewed by other motivations (conscious or not). The jersey stuff is not a theory - there's plenty of established conspiracy facts (i've read syrvet (never know how to spell that)) - how widespread and how connected to the mainland establishment is still being worked out (give it a couple of decades...). (and ta shambles, you'll make me blush)

EDIT: as for the royals stuff - they're such an old firm that's been scheming and conniving for nearly a thousand years (among a field of various other similar firms) - the amount of skeletons they've got in their closets it's difficult to spot any particular conspiracy among the noise (some shown in your links, though spivey makes me shudder). Just the basic facts of their existence and power are the big conspiracies (put on the throne by god? descended from Trojans? my hairy arse), and they go down from there. While we have HM government, Crown prosecution service, Royal regiments/air force, royal prerogative etc they'll be difficult to out through usual channels.
 
Last edited:
funny you should say that. It took Saviles death to break the news of his activities. I wouldn't be surprised if the passing of our dear queen might bring things out into the open. Same with Prince Philip, whose clogs I thought were about to pop a year or so back... but no such luck.

I've never liked this lot, so maybe I'm seeing shit that ain't there...
 
Oh there's stuff there (that's my nose talking) - how long until we hear the really juicy stuff in connection to royals is something else - i'm sure i've read of documents about the royals from nearly a century ago that are still classed secret. Also other documents like david kelly's autopsy mean we know there's all sorts of stuff being hidden - what the stuff is we don't know, but it must be dodgy enough to be worth hiding.
 
I'm sure he'd say they're just branches of the wider lizard family (electress of hanover, blah blah). Genealogy is a slippery business, and once you go over a few generations, it's possible to prove almost any connection you want among the intermarrying european elite - this is the fare of the usual grand conspiracy theory (but is really just the workings of class bias discussed above). Anyone who's played the excellent game Crusader Kings II will know what i mean.
 
While we have HM government, Crown prosecution service, Royal regiments/air force, royal prerogative etc they'll be difficult to out through usual channels.

The Crown Prosecution Service decides who get's to go to trial & who doesn't. Yeah, having this service performed by the crown is less than satisfactory. Stinks a little.

Another angle I am working on is this. I want to try to use missing children statistics, if there are any, to show that the numbers of missing kids is increasing, if it is... So I'm looking to find out how many children went missing in, say 2005, compared to how many were later found. I'm using 2005 as an example because I would've thought that any children still missing since 2005 are gone for good. I'll then try to correlate the data, if I can find any, to more recent missing children stats to see if there's been an increase or decrease in the number of children going missing these days.

I don't like the idea that all this shit is purely historic because it distracts people from the fact that this shit is sitll going on. After the closure of Haut de la Garenne in 1986, residents who were moved into smaller, domestic "foster" homes, their abuse often continued & in some cases increased.

If I can show that there are as many, if not more, children going missing now than there were a decade ago, then that might add support to my concern that the danger posed by organised child abuse gangs has not abated despite the exposure of Savile & the exposure of Westminsters connections to organised paedophilia.

... more than 10 missing in the last month. But I'll need "found kids" stats to make any proper assumptions - http://missingkids.co.uk/Missing/
 
Last edited:
The Crown Prosecution Service decides who get's to go to trial & who doesn't. Yeah, having this service performed by the crown is less than satisfactory. Stinks a little.

It's not actually 'The Crown' who performs this service at all. It was just set up by a Royal Commission in order to sanitise the existing system, which was chaotic.

It's controlled by barristers, not lizards.
 
Last edited:
It's not actually 'The Crown' who performs this service at all. It was just set up by a Royal Commission in order to sanitise the existing system, which was chaotic.

It's controlled by barristers, not lizards.

Whatever, it should be the people's anyway (as should all the machinery of government/law) - if it has no actual power, they won't mind giving it up will they. Even if crown somehow refers to the unelected state (judges/barristers/civilservice), it's still as bad - the elite is wider than just the royal family/aristocracy, but it's the same elite ultimately. I think it will still mean some feudal bollocks allegiance in the minds of most of the posh types involved, even if technically it's not directly under queenie's power; and therefore may be just as likely to hide stuff that puts royals in a bad light out of class loyalty.

IMO, the queen is an important part of the old feudal establishment which still interpenetrates the upper echelons of our 'government' and economy. When our system was 'democratised' over time, the rules and checks and balances were set up knowingly to allow this establishment to keep a lot of its power under a veneer of representation - the result was our permanent government: the elected politicians are a small part of it who are 'advised' in important matters by good sorts from her maj's civil service (many of them aristos) - the machinery of government mostly remains in these 'safe' hands - when shit starts to get too democratic, her maj's secret services (also packed with posh types) kick into gear to discredit the politicians (wilson), and people like mounbatten start building private armies and planning coups.

You have to swear to the queen to be an MP, a policeman, soldier, civil service, barrister (as far as i know - who knows what goes on in the quasi-masonic law society), and judge (did you know that all judges in britain have to be members of the specific law society branch in the city of london?) (the city of london corporation: now that's conspiracy worth reading up on - link

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.
...

EDIT - Si: I think that looking at overall missing persons can't tell you much about royal or establishment paedos - they will get lost in the noise of the many times more paedo incidents done by normal, non-posh, paedo family members i'd have thought (even though the royals may punch above their weight statistically as a group) - that's one good thing about the elite: there's not very many of them.
 
Last edited:
I imagine the sample size of the amount of children going missing per year wouldn't be big enough to infer anything

It was just an angle I was working on.

Here's another, from - http://thesecretpeople.wordpress.co...hrown-out-of-question-time-by-david-dimbleby/

I was hoping to hear from the political representatives on the panel of their disgust at having three children a week dying in our care institutions. I wanted to debate the brutal restraining techniques that guards and carers are using against children as young as eight. i.e. nose distraction, wrist restraints, double-seated embrace etc. There are serious injuries i.e. broken bones, suffocation etc every day.

Given that our care system for children has been proven historically to be porous enough for dozens if not hundreds of children to go missing from them permanently, it's hardly encouraging if that stat quoted by Bill Maloney is accurate. If that figure is accurate, who's to say that some of those kids aren't dying to cover up VIP paedo rings in spite of all the revelations about Savile & Haut de la Garenne in the last few years?
 
There's been some suff about dolphin square paedo allegations on the news today, including the alleged murder of three boys - the police say they're taking it seriously. I've been reading about these same bunch of allegations for at least a decade, now suddenly it's news - makes me suspect they've already got some discrediting in place - but who knows, maybe it's actually justice starting to happen finally (though having the met investigate stuff that was covered up by the met seems dodgy). They haven't mentioned any of the names associated with dolphin square on the telly (understandably), though on itn, they at least mentioned that there were many mps that stayed there and several were specifically named in the allegations (i've got leon brittain in a tutu stuck in my brain for some reason).

This is still just based on one person's word, but the police say they think it's credible ("true" even) - we'll see i suppose if many others now come forward

Guardian's take: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/18/police-claims-vip-sex-ring-murder-three-boys

And the mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nked-murders-THREE-young-boys-detectives.html

Some earlier stuff i read about dolphin square including two alleged victims (i guess one of them is the same as the current story ('Nick')): http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5322/dolphin-square-mps-threw-parties-for-sexual-abuse-of-children
 
Last edited:
Nice one Vurts, Exaro on the case as usual.

I've just finished reading a book on Savile. I find at the end of the book "Savile-The Beast" by John McShane, a story about a woman named Beverli Rhodes, who was used by a paedophile ring said to include celebrities, led by her stepfather (Patrick), a senior FREEMASON. Apparently this poor woman came into contact with Johnny Savile, Jimmys brother, who was also a paedophile.

Then I found these pictures of the queen leaving a hospital accompanied by her nurse, last year 2013.

Nice buckle, huh?

A-closer-look-reveals-hidden-occult-symbolism.jpg


Queen-Elizabeth-II-leaves-hospital-202x300.jpg


This I found on the most awfully editted page ever, here. Seriously, it's a very short article absolutely riddled with errors. It's worth clicking this link to see just how awful this article is - http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=66860

The pictures however, assuming they haven't been doctored (great pun), speak a thousand words.

& oh look, freemasons are just all over Jersey island, aren't they? Wow, another remarkable coincidence, I'm sure. Completely unrelated situations. I just see patterns coz I'm looking for patterns - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-27616938
 
Too much emphasis can be given to the masons, the illuminati and occult groups within the elite i think. The masons and groups like them in earlier times were often made up of people who were interested in 'progress' science and the enlightenment rather than working for the furthering of the power of the establishment - they were often anti-establishment if anything (though the bourgeois group that they often represented would become part of the establishment as the industrial revolution played out).

Another link that's often made by standard conspiracies is to link the illuminati of adam weishaput with the various groups called illuminati, illumined, or illuminated that sprung all over europe, but particularly in france - they go from there to say the illuminati planned the french revolution as part of a long term world domination plan (and don't start me on Pike's letter...). These groups did tend to share 'enlightmenment' ideas, but they weren't one organisation in any way, and had more to do with the introduction of civil society and democracy than anything like the new world order (though to many of the american originators of these stories, democracy and socialism is the new world order - if it is, sign me up).

The masons and groups like them are only as significant as the particular people who get together in their meetings. The real culprit, as always is class and class allegiance - the specific social grouping that alliegance is expressed through is not that relevant.

As for people within our elite having occult symbols and even belonging to certain occult groups, that's just a reflection of how archaic and old they are - when many of them founded their dynasties, those sort of ideas were science.
 
Indeed! I'm considering the possibility that the Satanist crap, Ickes alien lizards & possibly even the Freemasons angles, are all part of a misinformation campaign to discredit investigators, & that the real reason kids are being abused & murdered is for pleasure, nothing more, nothing less. All this stuff about ritual Satanic murder is just a bit too sensationalist for my liking, & I think it dilutes the message that there something off about the royal family by making those who believe these claims seem less than credible...

Nevertheless, I try to explore as many angles as I can & look for ways to link up the various protaganists.
 
That's more or less the way i think of it. The satanic panic of the 80s i think was definitely used to deflect investigation of real paedo scandals of the day (it was round that time the belgian stuff was starting to come out) - put out the story, then discredit it and try and ensure the public start to disbelieve that sort of story whenever it's raised. I know someone who lived in Orkney when her family was involved in a satanic panic - supposedly they were doing ritual satanic abuse on their children. Well actually, they were just hippies, or a bit alternative, which was the reason they got focussed on by certain members of the community (some of the children were hypnotised using some very dodgy techniques (later discredited) that brought out false memories). (funnily enough, i think Dame butler-sloss was invloved in some of the investigations at the time (though not the orkney one))
 
Top