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

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

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

He could easily have suggested that the information in Castle's dossier was more spicy than it actually was, thereby making it appear to be a National Security issue. That's far more plausible than MI5 being interested in anybody exposing 'links with PIE' (remember there was no actual evidence of wrongdoing in the dossier beyond that).

Again, Smith was actually present at the scene and visited the journo in question in order to put pressure on him to keep quiet. Suddenly Special Branch appears. Smith's doing? You betcha.
 
Far more 'occamy' given smith's overtly non-powerful position that 'national security' in this case was covering up mps' paedophilia for the good of the state (even if it was only cyril's which seems unlikely). These paranoid spooks thought we were on the verge of a commie revolution (laughable really), so wouldn't risk the scandal

With my experience of the british state and the work of people like Paul Foot and Mark Curtis - there's a preponderance of evidence from just these two authors that the british state has got up to many activities that are of similar evilness to the ones discussed here (and tried to cover them up) - (i won't give the egs here (i'm trying not to go marxist-waffle mode) failing no doubt).
 
Last edited:
It beats the fucking jesus out of me not only that this pack of faggot fuckwits is getting protected, but two other things too, 1 being that ANYBODY is willing to stick up for the colossal greasy trail of subhuman slime and shit, for a single dirty child molesting fuck-up even, and 2, it absolutely astounds me, that in cases like the jimmy sovile and his repulsive ilk, the way people, real people, in the BBC for instance, who KNEW what the little creep was and yet were prepared to ignore it and allow it to continue, just where in hades were the people that could have stamped out savile's paedophile practices.

Makes me sick that, it really does. People who find out about something of that nature being done to kids, and who yet choose to either close up ranks and keep it shut, or that AND refused to crack down hard on his like when made aware if they were not already in the know.

Thats so far out beyond the borders of indecent and wrong, past disgusting, and into the territory of the unforgivable. IMO those who have done so should be charged and jailed as accessories to the crimes committed by the nonces themselves.

I have to admit, I am looking forward to the day this comes home to roost for this government, there are plenty of filthy establishment trash who's heads need to roll and have for a long time without action being taken. It will be refreshing to see the walls come crashing down, and the nonces and the mealy-mouthed, insipid, arse-covering bastards both get dragged out from under whatever disease-riddled slimy rocks they happen to be inhabiting at the time.

Its high time all these establishment filth felt the wrath of the people. And suffered the way the poor kids that are victims of rape suffered and probably suffer still.
 
Wow. That's some righteous fury you've got going on there.

Any particular reason you chose the word 'faggots' as an insult, rather than one of the plethora of slang words for 'paedophiles'? I know it kind of became a generic insult at some point in the nineties, but that doesn't make it any less hateful.
 
The irony is limp chicken is a filthy pedo and would be the first one thrown in the clink if he was anyone of worth. Even jimmy Saville put on a public front of protecting the children at the same time as justifying his own deviant lifestyle. He talks about people ignoring what was going on yet I bet his girlfriend's parents also turned a blind eye to his dirty shenanigans.
 
Ian Watkins is appealing his 35 year sentence as its to harsh :?

Id add another 35 years to his sentence for being such a whiny fuck, to harsh, wtf... whats harsh (understatement ) is interfering with not just children but babies... Im not one for capital punishment but id seriously have him put down..
 
Sammy, no, the term was merely chosen as a generic term of insult.

And as for her mom...I was merely saying that she rose above any dislike she did have for me, I cannot tell or not for sure if she did or didn't care for me, can't read her between the lines as everything is written in what as may as well be primitive semite-territory-based- cuneiform pictographs, and loaded onto a right weird operating system as it is :P:D

And 1K words-don't compare me to the likes of savile and such filth, I am neither an abusive partner, nor a paedophile, I have a great dislike of both demographics.

As for ian watkins, good fucking gods, he sounds like one hell of a dangerous (and revolting) individual. Didn't he use his fame to persuade some woman to offer him their baby kid(s?) to abuse?

Have to say I agree both in opposition to the death penalty (make a mistake, and it cannot be undone, not to mention, its merely state-sponsored murder), and watkins. I wouldn't lose the smallest scrap of rest if someone were to disassemble him while he serves his sentence. From the sound of things that guy is a SERIOUSLY dangerous sexual predator, and that kind of nonce I doubt responds to therapy. At the very least lock him up in solitary for the rest of his miserable existence, otherwise, yes, good riddance, put the rapist sonofabitch down like a diseased animal, because that is precisely what he is.


And lastly. Anger, about whats seemingly been done by members of various governments and political parties? no shit. Is it either unjustified (I don't believe so)? or surprising that somebody gets pissed off about an establishment coverup to protect all their good ol' boys network? We have enough problems as it is, with liars thieves and fraudsters, without having to worry about child abusing or/and rapist MPs, no?
 
Limpet_Chicken said:
And lastly. Anger, about whats seemingly been done by members of various governments and political parties? no shit. Is it either unjustified (I don't believe so)? or surprising that somebody gets pissed off about an establishment coverup to protect all their good ol' boys network? We have enough problems as it is, with liars thieves and fraudsters, without having to worry about child abusing or/and rapist MPs, no?
Click to expand...

Impotent fury accomplishes nothing but temporary satisfaction for the person who happens to be venting it.

Depends on whether you had any sense of justice in the world to begin with. I certainly didn't. Exploitation of every kind occurs on a massive scale day in and day out throughout all cultures and not just western capitalist societies; you might go as far as to say it's ingrained in 'human nature'. Which isn't to say it should be accepted - quite the opposite.

It's not until we stop searching for bogeymen and confront our own essentially bestial nature that there's even a hope of vanquishing these particular demons. Putting the blame on 'evil' individuals gets us nowhere, except maintaining a completely false sense of security and 'justice' which does nothing but mask the true horror so we can get on with our day-today lives. The rich and powerful do not have a monopoly on inhumanity, nor is it solely the preserve of the 'evil'. To think otherwise is akin to blindly swallowing the fairytale nonsense which we're bombarded with day to day.

And with that...

One Thousand Words said:
So did you bang the 14 yr old autistic chick?
Click to expand...

... did you?
 
Exploitation requires power imbalance and is a specific historical situation, not human nature. Plenty of hunter gatherer societies have existed without the power imbalances which we in the west (and other empires) insist are part of 'civilisation'. The Iroquois were a bit more than just hunter gatherers, but they managed a very equitable society with rights for women (couple of centuries before their civilised invaders managed it) and true representative democracy within anarchism. Other indian tribes (and the members of the iroquois in the past) were not so equitable, but the existence of the iroquois (and other 'nice' hunter gatherers) suggests to me human nature is not the sole culprit for 'exploitation' (there has to be something to exploit with - eg accumulated 'wealth').

There's some truth to what you say about looking within, but i don't agree that we have a 'bestial' nature (unless you were being positive about being a 'beast') - we have as much, if not more instincts towards society cooperation and love as we do to our nasty sides (evolution wouldn't have given us our social brains if it didn't 'work') - to be 'beastly' (espcially to the savile level) requires quite a large deviation from our normal nature - as evidenced by how disgusting most people find it. We can't just divide the blame up for everything because it's 'human nature' (the trope of humans being naturally beastly and selfish is an old conservative idea to justify the exploitative power imbalance, that has now largely been superseded by science (eg).

And specifically in terms of elite paedophiles (or cover ups) the crime is paedophila and abuse of their massive power (i'd say the latter is the bigger crime as it encapsulates the former) - this is a political issue, and to hold your hands up because it's part of human nature lets them get away with it. Just like in all politics, it's our duty to hold rich and powerful people to account and to a higher standard than anyone else to justify how elevated their power already makes them - if they don't want to be held to these standards, they can give back their power (earned by our sweat anyway (yep it's the morning marxist rant (tm) (and i'm not even a marxist ;)))
 
Last edited:
Noble savages, eh? :D

I'm not entirely convinced by your romantic view of the (later) Iroquois people, Karl Vurtual. You needn't go as far as the Iroquois in order to find evidence of more 'just' pre-industrial societies, but if you delve deeper there's still the skeleton of the same old murderous hierarchy lurking in some cupboard.

Nor am I convinced that co-operation, altrusim and all the 'better' parts of human nature should be regarded as being part our 'true' nature, while the undesirable aspects are entirely due to society's poisonous influence. I used to believe the same as you, by the way, I want to believe it, and I think there's huge scope for nurturing this 'better' side. I'm not a believer in game theory; I believe that cooperation has been key in our evolution, etc. etc.

Yet this still doesn't negate the fact that we're still some way short of being fit to create anything approaching a truly equitable society, and therefore must confront the aspects of our makeup which prevent us from doing so. Obviously the current configuration of our society is a massive stumbling block, but ultimately it's a society that humans have created.

Do you see many of the wealthy and super-wealthy giving away their personal fortunes? Or do you see minor donations to a conscience-easing (or tax-easing) charity, and maybe a swift conversion to businessman's Buddhism? Why so? Are these people all less intrinsically 'human' somehow, and therefore less inclined to act in a way that benefits their fellow human being?

Vurtual said:
(unless you were being positive about being a 'beast')
Click to expand...

Only in attractive company. ;)

Note to Scots: The word 'beast' doesn't mean 'paedo' here.
 
Last edited:
[this should probably go in another thread ;)]

Well my experience of people and the science both converge on the idea of humans being cooperative and 'nice' by nature - i meet a wide cross-section of people, and i've never met many people who weren't basically nice (in their own (sometimes quite narrow) terms). And game theory gets a bad rap here, as it pretty much came to the cooperative conclusion too (via Robert Axelrod and others). Did you read that link in the last post? (there are many other examples)

Most of the evil stuff 'normal' people do they do (erroneously) for the good of who they think their 'in-group' is, and so is ultimately altruistic (though badly informed) - the 'out-group' needs to be dehumanised before this can be done. Soldiers have to be trained to be psychopaths and it takes some effort to do it (in the 'kill-bot factory'); even when successfully trained, they often have trauma from the evil they do (unless they're already naturally 'psychopathic' (whatever that means it's a rarity and not representative of most humanity).

I don't think you can use the activity of human society in the last few hundred years (or thousand) to tell you much about human nature as compared with the million or so of living as socially egalitarian hunter gatherers - this is a historical situation which has not yet worked through - it's the dreaded dialectic process (psychobabble maybe, but the hegelian/heraclitan/marxist/taoist process of 'becoming' does have lessons to teach us about change, impermanence and (r)evolution (as humans who crave stability we have trouble getting our head around it)).

There is imv a natural tendency towards justice and egalitarianism over time in human society - to me this is just darwinian evolution of a complex system (as seen in all complex adaptive systems) - things that benefit more people will tend to stick better than ones that don't, so it's like a ratchet - evidence for this is how much effort the elites have to continuously put in to keep left wing ideas supressed (did you read the 'Clandestine Caucus' yet?). Inasmuch as the supression is successful, the revolutionary pressure increases over time. As [some bloke] said when asked what the effects of the french revolution were: 'It's too early to tell'.

Power imbalance exists and is the cause of most of the 'evils' - but even the mega rich elite tell themselves stories about how society arranged to their advantage is actually better for the good of humanity - this suggests they like other people want to believe nice things about themselves and their in-group (they sleep fine at night). Most of the bollocks that whole societies believe about 'out-groups' are encouraged by these same elites for self-serving reasons (when something's self-serving, it doesn't even have to be conscious)

You could argue that while humans are individually altruistic, this may not always be the case in terms of a social unit (the 'others'); but i'd twist this back to power imbalance and centralisation/state power personally - the main motivation for encouraging xenophbia (ignorance) comes from centralised power/states - given a situation of increased knowledge, in my experience we quickly realise our common ground with the others.
 
Last edited:
Vurtual said:
[this should probably go in another thread ;)]

Well my experience of people and the science both converge on the idea of humans being cooperative and 'nice' by nature - i meet a wide cross-section of people, and i've never met many people who weren't basically nice (in their own (sometimes quite narrow) terms). And game theory gets a bad rap here, as it pretty much came to the cooperative conclusion too (via Robert Axelrod and others). Did you read that link in the last post? (there are many other examples)
Click to expand...

Haven't read the link in the last post yet (I'm in work), but didn't I already mention that I wasn't an exponent of game theory in any case?

It's easy to find good in 95% of the population though, isn't it? To then draw the conclusion that people are generally 'nice' is a bit of a leap, don't you think?

Your thinking is too macroscopic and influenced by your political leanings. Examine poisoned intimate human relationships, where both partners genuinely do feel 'love' for each other but end up driving each other to the brink of suicide, and you'll possibly see where I'm coming from. For a small fee, I can provide you with some excellent first-hand case studies if you like. :)

Though you'll probably attempt to apply dry dialectics to that too, eh? ;)

The Clandestine Caucus looks interesting. Probably more interesting to my younger and angrier self, which is not to imply that's the scope of its appeal, nor is it meant as a put-down; I've just read Illuminatus! too many times, I guess.
 
If my thinking is influenced by my political leanings (it isn't by the way - i'd noticed real people i met being mostly nice (even the 'horrible' ones) before i ever read marx), then yours is coloured by your idiosyncratic and i'd suggest unrepresentative life experience of bad relationship(s). Is that not an example of buddhist/schopenhaur desire=sufffering rather than us all wanting to be nasty? (or the futile hankering after stability in a world of change i mentioned before (whoops, it's dialectics again :)). I don't think you can say that relationships that end in suffereing, despite the intentions of the participants, indicate that we're inherently bad as a species (that's much more of a leap than mine).

The link i gave above isn't anything to do with game theory (bad sentence structure) but is worth a read - but maybe look up axelrod for an update of game theory which i too used to write off as simplistic cold war reductionism (still a valid judgement for some of the old stuff).

Don't write Robin Ramsay (Clandestine Caucus, The Rise of New Labour) off as a common conspiracy theorist - most of his writings are debunking flaky conspiracies (and he does it bloody well - much better than RAW managed) and finding the 'real' ones (usually a lot less sexy). Lobster magazine is proper - when people like pilger and paul foot endorse something it's not some flaky NWO-fearing bollocks - look at some of the articles it's had over the years (clockwork orange was its biggest scoop).

For some entertainment at work see this excellent Ramsay article from the 90s about Xfiles/UFOs and conspiracies - http://www.serendipity.li/eden/laconspi.html
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not writing Ramsay off as a conspiracist; far from it. I'm saying that the younger, conspiracy-obsessed version of myself would devour such a text, whereas the mid-thirties model is usually struggling to follow the thread of his own mundane existence and remember what day it is.

Bad relationships are unrepresentative? News to me, and many others, I'd wager! :D

You're probably correct in saying that my life experience has embittered me to some extent, though it's only relatively recently that I've become quite so cynical. I'm not suggesting intimate relationships as an example of human 'nastiness' in themselves though, as much as I'm using them as an example of how even the (supposedly) noblest and least selfish aspects of the human condition can result in unintended mutual torture. I'm not sure how you can equate 'love' and 'desire' so readily (despite the obvious intersection of the two) so I reject the Buddhist (nice dig ;) ) / Schopenhauer interpretation, although I see where you're coming from. Though to arrive at the conclusion that love is just a manifestation of desire, surely you're heading into cynical territory yourself and admitting the impossibility of agape and philia?

Hey, there's almost a tacit admission that I believe in love somewhere in that last paragraph. Only a slight one, mind.

Oh, and thanks for the link to the article. It'll keep me out of trouble here for a bit!
 
I agree that love isn't desire, but love without desire would not end up in the suffering (as sting said...). Love is always there, but desire and fear of change is where the suffering comes in (love is still there when the ego dies).

As for bad relationships, depends what you mean by bad - some (not all) of the ones i've been in had 'bad' bits at the end, but in totality i'd have to say they were good. And those bad bits came from the non-love aspects mentioned above.

Anyway, maybe we should get back on track (and haven't you got work to do ;)). Ahem, Paedos paedos paedos...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top