Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

[American Dream]

http://www.leninology.co.uk/2014/07/two-points-about-child-rape-scandal.html

Second, inevitably, it will occur to someone to say that this is all a moral panic. And they will gloat as if they thought of the idea all by themselves. Of course there is an element of moral panic in this. There couldn't possibly not be. This subject is catnip for conspiracists and kooks. Every Nazi and Ickean lizard-fancier in the land is wetting their lips. The homophobes are just getting started, because there is a trail of lurid gay-bashing innuendo to be traversed here. Of course it's a moral panic. And yet it moves. The facts stubbornly suggest serious and widespread abuse of children with high-level collusion and protection. The element of moral panic lies not in the studious attention to these facts and what they portend, but rather in the attempt to externalise the problem, to treat the abuse of children as the possessive characteristic of society’s outsiders, be they predatory elites or raincoat wearing ‘pervs’. It is a moral panic insofar as, rather than pointing to a structural-relational problem - viz. capitalist patriarchy - the issue is collapsed into a conspiracy of malign Others, the ultimate extreme of which is Nazi antisemitism or the Ickean lizard-people nonsense. That seems to me to be constitutive of moral panic.

Nice deflection piece, well done.

So, as a UK citizen, to be concerned about the paedophile ring operating at the highest levels of our society is 'moral panic,' right? To be concerned that the most vulnerable people in our society are being forcefully sexually exploited by people in positions of power, that do it with others blessing and can get away with it, even when evidence is presented and 'lost' - is 'moral panic', eh? And to be outspoken against these actions is...gay-bashing? And guess what...if you get too outraged about it, you're a NAZI?

Shame on this man. He suggests it will be branded a moral panic whilst insiduously branding it with the term himself. That he refers to the facts as 'stubborn' says it all. He's scared.

This interpretation of his words seems idiosyncratic and distorted to me.

[gnosticheresy_2]

it actually really is "a conspiracy of malign Others". Just because the extreme right are obsessed with Jewish conspiracies and David Icke thinks it's all lizards doesn't invalidate that fact. And analysing this in purely structural terms is one of the sorts of reasoning that lets this happen over and over again, because it's not power structures that rape kids, it's people.

What does this actually mean to you, in practical terms?

what do you mean "practical terms" like in a "how does this practically effect my life" sort of way or "what am I going to do about it" or....?

I just wonder what you mean by, "analysing this in purely structural terms is one of the sorts of reasoning that lets this happen over and over again, because it's not power structures that rape kids, it's people" because it seems to me like you have a very different interpretation of Seymour's words than I do.

Which is?

[American Dream]

it actually really is "a conspiracy of malign Others". Just because the extreme right are obsessed with Jewish conspiracies and David Icke thinks it's all lizards doesn't invalidate that fact. And analysing this in purely structural terms is one of the sorts of reasoning that lets this happen over and over again, because it's not power structures that rape kids, it's people.

What does this actually mean to you, in practical terms?

what do you mean "practical terms" like in a "how does this practically effect my life" sort of way or "what am I going to do about it" or....?

I just wonder what you mean by, "analysing this in purely structural terms is one of the sorts of reasoning that lets this happen over and over again, because it's not power structures that rape kids, it's people" because it seems to me like you have a very different interpretation of Seymour's words than I do.

Which is?

Honestly, it seems like a false dichotomy to me.

[coffin_dodger]

AD said:
This interpretation of his words seems idiosyncratic and distorted to me.

id·i·o·syn·cra·sy: A structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group.

Idiosyncratic in what way, exactly, AD? To which group do I belong?

[coffin_dodger]

I apologise to other members for appearing to derail this very important thread.

That said, when AD posts some propoganda as to why we should all look the other way and I call bullshit on it, then to face insinuations for doing so, I cannot remain silent - or distracted. I won't hold my breath for an answer to these charges levelled against me.

[American Dream]

I apologise to other members for appearing to derail this very important thread.

That said, when AD posts some propoganda as to why we should all look the other way and I call bullshit on it, then to face insinuations for doing so, I cannot remain silent - or distracted. I won't hold my breath for an answer to these charges levelled against me.

You appear to be based in a view of reality that you're not conveying very clearly here. It's not to be assumed how you interpret what Seymour says:

Of course there is an element of moral panic in this. There couldn't possibly not be. This subject is catnip for conspiracists and kooks. Every Nazi and Ickean lizard-fancier in the land is wetting their lips. The homophobes are just getting started, because there is a trail of lurid gay-bashing innuendo to be traversed here. Of course it's a moral panic. And yet it moves. The facts stubbornly suggest serious and widespread abuse of children with high-level collusion and protection. The element of moral panic lies not in the studious attention to these facts and what they portend, but rather in the attempt to externalise the problem, to treat the abuse of children as the possessive characteristic of society’s outsiders, be they predatory elites or raincoat wearing ‘pervs’. It is a moral panic insofar as, rather than pointing to a structural-relational problem - viz. capitalist patriarchy - the issue is collapsed into a conspiracy of malign Others, the ultimate extreme of which is Nazi antisemitism or the Ickean lizard-people nonsense.

How are you interpreting his comments?

[coffin_dodger]

AD, you are the most slippery, untrustworthy person I have ever encountered online. Your constant insinuations, when challenged, are left unanswered and hanging in the air, tarnishing the reputations of any unfortunate individual you cast your beady, morally-indignant eye upon.
You are a useful fool for those that would exploit you. But your rhetoric is becoming old and stale. Things are moving forward and you are being left behind. You know changes are coming... right? That our literal enslavement to this monetary debt system is crumbling? That the people who have dominated humanity via this system are shitting their pants that their debt system scam is being exposed? That they will risk WAR to hold on to that power?

I don't care WHO they are, what nationality they are, what colour, faith or creed they are - but I do care that their aggression and exploitation is highlighted to a greater audience that might just begin to realise what is at stake here.

I made myself perfectly clear when I critiqued Seymours statement. Your 'line of questioning' is trite and self-smitten in the context of current events.

[American Dream]

AD, you are the most slippery, untrustworthy person I have ever encountered online. Your constant insinuations, when challenged, are left unanswered and hanging in the air, tarnishing the reputations of any unfortunate individual you cast your beady, morally-indignant eye upon.
You are a useful fool for those that would exploit you. But your rhetoric is becoming old and stale. Things are moving forward and you are being left behind. You know changes are coming... right? That our literal enslavement to this monetary debt system is crumbling? That the people who have dominated humanity via this system are shitting their pants that their debt system scam is being exposed? That they will risk WAR to hold on to that power?

I don't care WHO they are, what nationality they are, what colour, faith or creed they are - but I do care that their aggression and exploitation is highlighted to a greater audience that might just begin to realise what is at stake here.

I made myself perfectly clear when I critiqued Seymours statement. Your 'line of questioning' is trite and self-smitten in the context of current events.

Here's how I'm interpreting what you are and are not saying:

You do think that the UK paedophile rings are a sign of the "malign other" more than anything- as opposed to you absolutely by any nonsense about structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy. You're not willing to say whether you think the perpetrators represent some kind of jewish or alien conspiracy, whether the shape shift or drink blood. You are however fairly confident that you know who they are and why they are abusing children.

Have I got that right? Why do you think "they" are abusing children? And why might you think knowing about perps precludes addressing structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy in the Society as a whole?

[coffin_dodger]

I don't usually disect, line by line, the minutae of another members posting, but needs must and all that.

To be absolutely clear:

You do think that the UK paedophile rings are a sign of the "malign other" more than anything

Yes, I do. I believe that the heirarchical system that runs through every aspect of human culture will have a capstone.

- as opposed to you absolutely by any nonsense about structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy

Yes, as opposed to a capitalist patriarchy being responsible.

You're not willing to say whether you think the perpetrators represent some kind of jewish or alien conspiracy, whether the shape shift or drink blood.

We've covered this before AD, you're just being wilfully blind. I told that I think Icke is a whacko on a previous thread and I have previously denied being an anti-semite and still do.

You are however fairly confident that you know who they are and why they are abusing children. Have I got that right? Why do you think "they" are abusing children?

Yes, I know who they are - it's called reading the newspapers and RI. 'They' are primarily people where power affords them the luxury of abuse, Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris to name but a couple - and if you check the archives here, quite a few MP's, members of the Royal Household and entertainment industry crop up time and again. I suspect the majority of them are just unable to control their urge, but some, those in positions to make decisions that really matter, are 'allowed' to do it so that the capstone can control them. This isn't a terribly clever, secret agenda that is impossible to imagine - it's a method of control as old as civilisation.

And why might you think knowing about perps precludes addressing structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy in the Society as a whole?

Ermmm... WTF? So that we can stop them raping any more children, rather than sitting around discussing capitalist patriarchy.

I've afforded you the luxury of answering all your questions AD, when you have never answered mine. I'm finished with your crap for now.

[Searcher08]

AD, you are the most slippery, untrustworthy person I have ever encountered online. Your constant insinuations, when challenged, are left unanswered and hanging in the air, tarnishing the reputations of any unfortunate individual you cast your beady, morally-indignant eye upon.
You are a useful fool for those that would exploit you. But your rhetoric is becoming old and stale. Things are moving forward and you are being left behind. You know changes are coming... right? That our literal enslavement to this monetary debt system is crumbling? That the people who have dominated humanity via this system are shitting their pants that their debt system scam is being exposed? That they will risk WAR to hold on to that power?

I don't care WHO they are, what nationality they are, what colour, faith or creed they are - but I do care that their aggression and exploitation is highlighted to a greater audience that might just begin to realise what is at stake here.

I made myself perfectly clear when I critiqued Seymours statement. Your 'line of questioning' is trite and self-smitten in the context of current events.

Here's how I'm interpreting what you are and are not saying:

You do think that the UK paedophile rings are a sign of the "malign other" more than anything- as opposed to you absolutely by any nonsense about structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy. You're not willing to say whether you think the perpetrators represent some kind of jewish or alien conspiracy, whether the shape shift or drink blood. You are however fairly confident that you know who they are and why they are abusing children.

Have I got that right? Why do you think "they" are abusing children? And why might you think knowing about perps precludes addressing structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy in the Society as a whole?

You are attempting to derail this thread and it sure as fuck aint happening while I'm standing.

This thread is not about "structural issues with capitalist patricarchy".
This thread is about Jimmy Savile and the UK pedophile rings.

If you want to start another thread about "post-structuralist implications of neo-Marxist concepts of Nambla-as-others' - do so, dont fill this thread up with your pure-distration libcom garbage.

You historically gave ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL encouragement in the UK fight against paedo rings.

Because you are informed by a symbolic landscape that has people whose ideology does not meet your approval as being little more than bacteria in a host, with YOU playing the immune system. Variations on a theme of extermination

The curious fact is that there has been more online activism and detective work on the subject by ordinary cross-class, cross social groups Brits on the Icke forum. They really dont give a shit about either reptilians or David Icke or your structuralist critiques.
Go and read it.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222773
4000 PAGES, 80000 REPLIES, 14 MILLION VIEWS

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

AD, you are the most slippery, untrustworthy person I have ever encountered online. Your constant insinuations, when challenged, are left unanswered and hanging in the air, tarnishing the reputations of any unfortunate individual you cast your beady, morally-indignant eye upon.
You are a useful fool for those that would exploit you. But your rhetoric is becoming old and stale. Things are moving forward and you are being left behind. You know changes are coming... right? That our literal enslavement to this monetary debt system is crumbling? That the people who have dominated humanity via this system are shitting their pants that their debt system scam is being exposed? That they will risk WAR to hold on to that power?

I don't care WHO they are, what nationality they are, what colour, faith or creed they are - but I do care that their aggression and exploitation is highlighted to a greater audience that might just begin to realise what is at stake here.

I made myself perfectly clear when I critiqued Seymours statement. Your 'line of questioning' is trite and self-smitten in the context of current events.

Here's how I'm interpreting what you are and are not saying:

You do think that the UK paedophile rings are a sign of the "malign other" more than anything- as opposed to you absolutely by any nonsense about structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy. You're not willing to say whether you think the perpetrators represent some kind of jewish or alien conspiracy, whether the shape shift or drink blood. You are however fairly confident that you know who they are and why they are abusing children.

Have I got that right? Why do you think "they" are abusing children? And why might you think knowing about perps precludes addressing structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy in the Society as a whole?

What you are doing is protecting the people who are doing this by turning them into some abstraction. No one is honestly afraid that the "Capitalist Patriachy" is going to be brought down, but there are definitely people afraid of the Elite Pedophile ring being exposed. The point of of these concepts is precisely to protect the people in power, by drawing attention away from the actual concrete actors involved. And really, what does "Capitalist Patriarchy" have to do with this? How does Capitalism play into pedophile/blackmail rings? Look forward to you ignoring me.

[American Dream]

I don't usually disect, line by line, the minutae of another members posting, but needs must and all that.

To be absolutely clear:

You do think that the UK paedophile rings are a sign of the "malign other" more than anything

Yes, I do. I believe that the heirarchical system that runs through every aspect of human culture will have a capstone.

- as opposed to you absolutely by any nonsense about structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy

Yes, as opposed to a capitalist patriarchy being responsible.

You're not willing to say whether you think the perpetrators represent some kind of jewish or alien conspiracy, whether the shape shift or drink blood.

We've covered this before AD, you're just being wilfully blind. I told that I think Icke is a whacko on a previous thread and I have previously denied being an anti-semite and still do.

You are however fairly confident that you know who they are and why they are abusing children. Have I got that right? Why do you think "they" are abusing children?

Yes, I know who they are - it's called reading the newspapers and RI. 'They' are primarily people where power affords them the luxury of abuse, Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris to name but a couple - and if you check the archives here, quite a few MP's, members of the Royal Household and entertainment industry crop up time and again. I suspect the majority of them are just unable to control their urge, but some, those in positions to make decisions that really matter, are 'allowed' to do it so that the capstone can control them. This isn't a terribly clever, secret agenda that is impossible to imagine - it's a method of control as old as civilisation.

And why might you think knowing about perps precludes addressing structural issues such as capitalist patriarchy in the Society as a whole?

Ermmm... WTF? So that we can stop them raping any more children, rather than sitting around discussing capitalist patriarchy.

I've afforded you the luxury of answering all your questions AD, when you have never answered mine. I'm finished with your crap for now.

I think you must be assuming I have a much sharper memory of things here than I actually do, coffin_dodger. I don't recall much that may be basic about many of the posters here as I read only a portion of the threads. I definitely don't recall the specifics of those interactions with you, though I do trust you as to the details. Definitely, I don't recall the questions I didn't answer. If you can copy them here and/or link to them, I will give it my best.

As to identifying particular perps and, I guess, seeing that they are prosecuted, I have a fairly strong critique of the State as such but certainly would not oppose this- quite the opposite, in fact. That said, I think Seymour is making an important point that it is Capitalist Patriarchy which privileges and protects these rich and powerful men. To get to the root of the problem, we need to address this.

In what way is that a dodge? Nailing the perps and creating a just society are complementary goals. The dichotomy is not absolute and ultimately, illusory. If we really want the abuse and suffering to end, it will take an effort on all these fronts.

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

How would you suggest we destroy "Capitalist Patriarchy"?

[coffin_dodger]

Zom, we're playing into AD's modus operandi - post some inflamatory nazi-themed prose, accuse various members of being anti-semetic, then switch to perfect reasonableness and sweetness once the thread has been derailed. I apologise to all about what has happened to this thread.

[American Dream]

Zom, we're playing into AD's modus operandi - post some inflamatory nazi-themed prose, accuse various members of being anti-semetic, then switch to perfect reasonableness and sweetness once the thread has been derailed. I apologise to all about what has happened to this thread.

I posted Richard Seymour's thread as soon as it came out- because it was relevant and useful. I do think he is right about the opportunists from the extreme right, as well as the Ickeans- and I do think this is quite relevant here at RI. I think also that we begin to take on Capitalist Patriarchy by acknowledging it as a category and that to me, the efforts to get towards the roots are part of the Revolution of Everyday Life.