chandrakavi wrote:
And does this not simply reinforce everything I said above about the monetary system?

andyh wrote:
Sorry, I assumed you would know I just meant the 'little people'!

Miss Behaving wrote:
Do you seriously believe paedophilia is more acceptable now than it was in the 60s/70s/80s?
The Jimmy Savile (and similar) affair suggests otherwise. It was once seen as no biggie.

andyh wrote:
I largely agree with this. What has definitely increased is consciousness of the issue.

But, it has to be said, what was once seen as a bit of harmless (albeit illegal) fun is no longer thought to be harmless.

Miss Behaving wrote:

I have nothing but admiration for that and agree fully that it's very positive indeed... thankyou

Miss Behaving wrote:
Well yeah that was my interpretation but it wouldn't necessarily be everyones...I think thats partly reflective of the jist of pskettis post actually.
If we're not careful about what we type on here it could be misinterpreted and the forum could end up in trouble for it.
Thats not to say ofc that anything you have put on here is dodgy, I agree with most of it.
The only issue I have is actually in identifying priorities because I believe this 'truth' movement could have power if it was focused on what matters the most first and then put that focus into real actions.

I see the monetary system as being the driving force behind much but not all of the worlds ills.
Then I see education as being second, then I see lack of direct democracy as being third then I see the environment as being fourth and so on and so forth. The 'truth' movement itself is nothing more than an inevitable vent outlet provided by the internet which if it does not provide tangible real world results, serves as being nothing more than being precisely what the 'elite' or call them what you will wanted all along.
It gives people the 'impression' that 'something' is being done about 'it'.
Yet what is actually being done about the gripes people have? And are these gripes not the same ones our ancestors had again and again?

Verlander wrote:
We are indeed aware and hopefully this thread will go a long way to avoiding such issues from arising.

We can but hope

psketti wrote:
+1

As someone who prefers action (if at all possible) rather than mere wringing of hands, I too admire those who take the fight right to the doorstep of wrongdoers.

Verlander wrote:



Shocking as it is, this is so very true.



Agreed. Combine that with technology which has given us the mass communication aspect and the result is what we're seeing now.

Who's to say where it will lead though...

Verlander wrote:
Ooooh, totally, totally, disagree. It was and never will be acceptable to abuse and take advantage of vulnerable children

Verlander wrote:
"Do you seriously believe paedophilia is more acceptable now than it was in the 60s/70s/80s?"

Sorry, not making myself clear! I meant the 'agenda' for acceptability, talking of lowering the age of consent, high percentage of child abuse offenders receiving no custodial sentence, etc.

psketti wrote:
This is what bothers me.
I see Sept 2001 as being the real birth of the movement so to speak, but almost 13 years later very little progress has been made.
If anything we are more divided than ever over petty small issues, there is very little in the way of focus on the systemic paradigm itself.
I see a lot of people who want to focus on individual symptomatic issues such as child abuse, 911, aliens or a myriad of other such stuff.
I see it as a form of divide and conquer within the truth movement itself and the spokesmen for the truth movement such as Alex Jones and David Icke choose to push it for all its worth rather than point out what I just have in this thread.

In this respect I see the actual spokesmen as being 'behind' people like myself. There is nothing they can tell me anymore, they just keep repeating the same stuff and whining about it without ever focusing on what is causing it. They do that IMHO because it keeps the money coming in. Money just keeps cropping up doesn't it?

Miss Behaving wrote:

I believe, what verlander meant, was that at one point in our society (not that long ago in fact), these things were acceptable. He was merely stating a point.

I didn't read it at all as if that were verlanders views

Miss Behaving wrote:
You are right ofc.
However, if you look at islam today they basically approve of abusing women and children.
Christianity was no different if you use the same calendar date for then as islams calendar date now.

But thats a case of the media of the time, in that case being religion, today the media is tv,magazines etc.

To get back to the matter in hand, I do feel it would be a pity if child abuse threads were visible only to logged in members. The more publicity these things have the better.

However, and it's a big HOWEVER, we surely need to exercise common sense? Wild accusations of named individuals (or very clear pointers even if the name is not used) without specific proof will only lead to trouble. To use Alex Jones's delightful phrase, it is the 'turd in the punchbowl' which can only serve to reduce SZ's credibility, e.g. sneers about keyboard warriors from the likes of Icke & co.

Obviously the facilitators have a role here but, one would hope, some clear guidelines upfront will obviate the necessity for frequent intervention.

andyh wrote:
But then why is child abuse endemic in the 'upper' strata of society?

Having no children and having no experience of child abuse, my main interest in the Savile 'affair' is the way it has shone flashes of light into the sordid underbelly of the establishment - the Royals, the masons, showbiz and entertainment, police, intelligence, the BBC, the NHS etc. It is a major gateway to people 'waking up' and it leads people to realisations about so many other areas, including the economic system. Seeing musicians or actors or writers or tv personalities that you 'grew up with' exposed as minions of a perverted network has a visceral shock that economic matters don't have, and while in that state people will be more inclined to see the wider, interconnected issues.

Miss Behaving wrote:
We need to be clear: it is not acceptable TO YOU. It is, and has been, acceptable to large numbers of people including some in very high places. They do not see it as evil or damaging.

The way these things are looked at certainly varies in different parts of the world. I'm sure the thought of an adult having sex with a 13 year old would give you the vapours! .......................but it is not illegal in Spain.

musky wrote:
Well this is partly about what Psketti was getting at...

What makes you think that just the upper strata of society has endemic child abuse?
Where is the evidence showing that this is the case?
Also what is the upper strata of society?

As far as I can see from most cases prosecuted in the UK, its primarily the underclass of the UK and after visits by social workers.
Unfortunately there's no way of examining the evidence in any of those cases because its secret, all thats available is just numbers of cases and what you can infer from where they live.

musky wrote:

It's endemic in all parts of society and predominantly, in families. It would be very foolish to believe otherwise.

The way I look at it, the essence of the problem is the desire of the mega-rich aristocratic families to control the world's population. The economic system is one of the major tools by which that control is exerted. And so is sex blackmail and paedophilia. They are connected. The people who do this in gangs, the rich ones I mean, are the same ones who are of or related to or great pals with or servants of the ruling class who desire to control us with debt currency.

psketti wrote:
Yes, but I'm saying that affluence doesn't eliminate child abuse as andyh seemed to claim, in fact the proportion of nonces in the upper wealth bracket and 'governing class' is much higher than among the general population.

My instinct here is that there already exists some self-identifying group which wishes to concentrate their efforts in one direction.

I then suggest the next stage of that groups development and profile raising is to indeed stand up on their own feet and establish a dedicated site/forum.

That would then put them in complete control of what is and isn't permissible content.
Give a contact point for press and media.
And most importantly, a contact/support and referral point for victims.
I can anticipate no argument for doing less than that.

Throughout this discussion I have seen reference after reference to 'we' 'us' etc that already indicates a degree of separation and potential repeated conflict.
I am suggesting that be acknowledged right out of the gate and we collectively attempt to come up with a more workable solution.