Leftist BBC gives air time to man who raped his 8 year old daughters

[A Voice from the Mountains]

BBC is blasted for not cutting off a paedophile who called a phone-in from jail to say how his daughters ENJOYED being abused by him when they were eight

The caller was on air for nearly five minutes discussing his sex crimes
Rather than cutting him off, presenter Allan Beswick engaged in conversation
The paedophile said as well as raping his daughters he makes child porn DVDs


The BBC has been blasted for not cutting off a paedophile who rang in a phone-in to say how his eight year old daughters enjoyed being raped by him.

He rang the radio show from prison and spent nearly five minutes on air discussing his sex crimes.

The caller even spoke about how he had started to make videos of child sex on the late night BBC phone-in show.

Rather than cutting him off, the presenter Allan Beswick engaged in conversation with the man for four-and-a-half minutes during the programme, which was broadcast on March 1 on BBC Radio Manchester and BBC Radio Lancashire.

Listeners were horrified to hear the man repeat graphic details of his alleged crimes and argue DVDs of ‘child sex’ should be supplied to adults to prevent them abusing children.

The paedophile said: 'Both my daughters enjoyed sex with me when they were eight years of age, with full consent and knowledge of their mother.

'I've now progressed to making DVDs of child sex and I argue very strongly that I'm doing a public service.

'There are a lot of professional people paying good money to watch a DVD of children having sex.'

At one point a flustered Beswick said: 'I'm glad to hear it.'

But eventually the 68-year-old presenter got rid of the caller by saying: 'You're vile, get off.'

The BBC Trust, who launched an immediate investigation after the incident, released a report yesterday stating the broadcast breached editorial guidelines and was ‘a most serious error of judgement’.

The report by the BBC’s editorial standard’s committee said: ‘Trustees were deeply troubled by the fact that the caller had been allowed on air in the first place.’

They added it was considered to be in breach of guidelines ‘irrespective of whether the caller was actually describing his crimes or whether it was a hoax call’.

The report found that the show’s producer, who is supposed to listen to every call, ‘became distracted’ and so only listened to the last minute of the conversation.

The next morning, the editor was informed of the incident and passed the caller’s contact details on to Greater Manchester Police.

In an apology broadcast the night after the programme was aired, Beswick said: ‘If you were listening last night, you might have heard from a caller who made a number of grossly offensive comments.

‘Now, I’ve listened back to what he said and I’ve discussed the matter with people that I trust, and I’m now convinced that I shouldn’t have allowed the call to continue.

‘I should have ended it sooner. A lot sooner. So I apologise for that. And I apologise because I think you’re entitled to expect rather better from me.’

A BBC spokesperson said: ‘This was completely unacceptable and clearly broke our strict editorial guidelines. A full, on air apology was made.

‘All those involved recognise it was wrong to broadcast such offensive content.

‘We have already reviewed and strengthened our procedures and provided additional training and supervision.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4325874/BBC-blasted-letting-paedophile-boast-radio.html


They didn't cut him off earlier because they didn't want to be seen as intolerant racist, sexist xenophobes, of course. I mean they have to honor their progressive values!

Hell, this man may have worked for the BBC in the past. Just like Jimmy Savile himself!

[Cidersomerset]

The paedophile said: 'Both my daughters enjoyed sex with me when they
were eight years of age, with full consent and knowledge of their mother.

'I've now progressed to making DVDs of child sex and I argue very strongly
that I'm doing a public service.

'There are a lot of professional people paying good money to watch
a DVD of children having sex.'


The only 'positive ' is that maybe somebody heard it that it shows how
wide spread this is and start taking the alternate community claims
of state collusion , blackmail , control covered up by power people
with dark secrets.....

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50809-How-Jimmy-was-able-to-Fix-it----/page92

[norman]

I think something is afoot with the Beeb and Pedophilia.

I hardly ever listen to BBC Radio 4 these days, even though I record it 24/7 in case something big happens. I turned it on for half an hour a couple of weeks ago and heard something that was a bit spooky, considering what's going around about pedos these days.

I can't remember what the program was, or even if it was a news slot or what. Someone said something like this:

"should we reconsider how we deal with pedophiles?"

That struck me as a loaded meme insertion.

When the bbc airs a comment/question like that, I think they are fiddling with the matrix. Why would people high up in the bbc and government be interested in changing how we deal with pedophiles?

Beats me, I can't think why..... ;)

[sheme]

The BBC has lost all credibility it has gone down the toilet very very fast- something is seriously wrong IMO. When you get once dignified professional presenters being disrespectful to The president of the USA sniggering and laughing like silly school children quoting ( unscripted) someone saying "Trump he is a tub of lard" you know they are run by the peado elite. I only listen to them to find out what they are choosing/ directed to ignore then that is where I choose to look else where-BBC is real FAKE news. Russia today makes for more truthful news these days.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I think something is afoot with the Beeb and Pedophilia.

I hardly ever listen to BBC Radio 4 these days, even though I record it 24/7 in case something big happens. I turned it on for half an hour a couple of weeks ago and heard something that was a bit spooky, considering what's going around about pedos these days.

That's smart to record it like that. I'm glad there are people like you out there doing this for MSM, so we can keep a public record of sorts.


The Jimmy Savile scandal was enough to show that there is something really off in the BBC. And when the BBC itself was about to be "investigated" (very softly no doubt) for why it didn't act on Jimmy Savile complaints earlier, they moved the guy in charge of the BBC to the US and put him in charge of the New York Times.

How do you like that?

[Chakra]

[QUOTE]BBC is blasted for not cutting off a paedophile who called a phone-in from jail to say how his daughters ENJOYED being abused by him when they were eight

The caller was on air for nearly five minutes discussing his sex crimes
Rather than cutting him off, presenter Allan Beswick engaged in conversation
The paedophile said as well as raping his daughters he makes child porn DVDs


Hell, this man may have worked for the BBC in the past. Just like Jimmy Savile himself!

So the only thing we have to go by is that they claim he called from jail. We don't actually know for a fact that is the case.
It might have caused them more grief to hang up the call. Just in case that they were trying to trace the call. Keeping him on the air was the best way to keep him on the line, in that he could have been calling from an old phone line and they needed that time.

The thing that's not right is the claim he is? making or did? make DVDs.


'I've now progressed to making DVDs of child sex and I argue very strongly that I'm doing a public service.

[Cidersomerset]

BBC radio host allowed 'paedophile prisoner' to defend sex abuse on air

By Andrew Cheetham on 18 March 2017 GMT
D.Icke Headline page....



In a damning ruling, the Trust’s editorial standards committee said the
programme was a serious breach of BBC guidelines - on harm and
offence, reporting crime, and protecting the victims of sexual offences.

“Trustees were deeply troubled by this incident, which they considered
showed a grave lack of judgement by the presenter and a serious failure
to follow the programme’s protocols.”



read more...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/bbc-radio-host-allowed-paedophile-prisoner-air-deeply-troubling/

[DeDukshyn]

So ... you took a non-politically motivated story, added ta derogatory "Leftist" descriptor to the title of your post (where it did not exist at all in original content - this isn't a copy / paste thing), and made a politically motivated comment as to create "reasons" for the actions of that twit from the BBC, and pretty much smeared a large group of individuals - liberal minded people, and tried to group them in an ideology that only a "leftist" could do such a thing because they are afraid to not do it? The presenter made the decisions himself, apparently. I do expect better from my fellow avalonians.

I find it hard to believe some of us are still so suckered into this left / right wing trap that we actually "pump up" the divide and conquer strategies ourselves where none existed in the original content ... but c'est la vie.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The BBC is obviously leftist. Everything they do is politically motivated. You think this call was an accident?

Next you will tell me that "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" are false dichotomies too. Conservative politicians are certainly severely compromised too but the underlying ideological difference is night and day.

A true conservative, a champion of traditional family values, would never put up with this garbage for 5 minutes and you know it.

[DeDukshyn]

The BBC is obviously leftist. Everything they do is politically motivated. You think this call was an accident?

Next you will tell me that "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" are false dichotomies too. Conservative politicians are certainly severely compromised too but the underlying ideological difference is night and day.
...

My issue is that you added potentially inflammatory politically charged words to the article where none existed. All the politically charged elements to this story were ones you added - both in the title and in your comments. I don't disagree that BBC is likely more left leaning, but in order to not be sucked into that divide and conquer strategy we need to stop painting pictures of "leftist" and "rightist" and (although not here) terms like "lib-tard" and "contard". They do nothing but add to the divide and conquer strategies the elite want you to use against your fellow humans. It is their control mechanism -- not ours.

Was it inappropriate for this presenter to allow the conversation to go on for five minutes? Probably - I don't know, nor will pretend to know his reasoning. You claim that this happened only because he is a "leftist" ... well I've seen similar inappropriateness, like someone getting shot live on the news with my kids watching. Fox News, a right leaning station, is notorious for airing inappropriate crap. So is this really a "left - right" article? Story? Problem? Or did you just attempt to turn it into one?

I'd say that with both stations like Fox news and I'll assume also the BBC that this type of thing happens because it is sensationalism at its best -- and that gives ratings, and that keeps the "owners" happy, particularly when other people in turn enhance that sensationalism for politician reasons, which in turn keeps the owners "owners" happy.

Do you not think that at the very top of power, there is no "left / right" to them? It is a tool that they wield for exactly the purpose of further ensnaring benefits of one of the oldest conquer strategies in the book. Stop playing their game - everyone only loses at this game and our true adversaries only win.




... A true conservative, a champion of traditional family values, would never put up with this garbage for 5 minutes and you know it.

And what ... a "true liberal" gathers all the kids around to enjoy stories of pedophilia every night? What on earth are you thinking? Are you implying that liberal minded people are responsible for pedophilia and conservative minded people have to fight the liberals to stop it? I am really at a loss to understand your perspective. But if you believe the former outright, than I suppose the added politically charged comments would make sense ... to you.

[Franny]

I so strongly agree with this. We can do better than fall for the divide and rule social programming.


...but in order to not be sucked into that divide and conquer strategy we need to stop painting pictures of "leftist" and "rightist" and (although not here) terms like "lib-tard" and "contard". They do nothing but add to the divide and conquer strategies the elite want you to use against your fellow humans. It is their control mechanism -- not ours.


Years ago I worked in the Washington DC area as an IT professional. One of my colleagues, Mike, had a friend that worked as a Congressional aid of some sort...it's been awhile so I don't recall his position. This friend stressed to Mike and he to us that at the top they were apolitical and laughed at the masses that bought into the right/left social engineering strategy. He pointed out that parties and platform are for public consumption, to make it appear to the public as if there was an actual difference. A few crumbs and loaves are tossed here and there to keep up the illusion -- and that is all it is.

He said the only thing at the top is: power, The Agenda and money.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

My issue is that you added potentially inflammatory politically charged words to the article were none existed.

Why does pointing out that the BBC is leftist make it inflammatory for you? You don't think people on the far left are beyond criticism do you? So why should it be necessary to temper all criticism of the left with equal doses of criticism of the right? It has the effect of dismissing anything critical coming out of modern liberalism, which is a huge problem.

When Bush and Blair were in office I was just as critical of the neo-cons, though even the "right" in Britain is still on the left compared to the US. Actually the two systems really aren't even compatible because we have never been openly socialist and neither have ever been a monarchy. But I hope you get my point, which is that I'm not a fan of either side of the political establishment.

That doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade. There is no reason for you to be triggered by the word "leftist" any more than by the word "neo-con."


I don't disagree that BBC is likely more left leaning, but in order to not be sucked into that divide and conquer strategy we need to stop painting pictures of "leftist" and "rightist" and (although not here) terms like "lib-tard" and "contard". They do nothing but add to the divide and conquer strategies the elite want you to use against your fellow humans. It is their control mechanism -- not ours.

I'm already way ahead of you on this brother. We gutted our establishment right-wing neo-cons when we put Trump in office. We just have to clean out Congress now. Britain is a different story.

Leftists at this point are far more dangerous than the crumbling neo-con establishment, for the same reason that China is a much more oppressive nation than Russia. The radical left has all the same negative qualities of the neo-cons except they are much more socially oppressive using political correctness to stifle free speech and simultaneously normalize absurd stuff like this "I raped my 8 year old daughters and they loved it" filth that they allowed to go on for nearly 5 minutes.

If you try to mention the fact that Islamic immigrants in Britain abuse women and children at an extremely disproportionate rate, the BBC hosts will flip out and shut you down in an instant. But then if you come on and talk about how great it was to rape your daughter they'll give you 5 minutes.


Was it inappropriate for this presenter to allow the conversation to go on for five minutes? Probably - I don't know

If it's so hard for you to decide if this was a mistake or not, help me understand how this could have been appropriate then. Explain to me why even giving this guy 30 seconds to say this stuff would have been appropriate.


Fox News, a right leaning station, is notorious for airing inappropriate crap. So is this really a "left - right" article? Story? Problem? Or did you just attempt to turn it into one?

For better or worse, whether you like it or not (and I have a feeling you don't like it), right-wingers get their morality much more from the Bible than liberals do, at least in the United States where we have Fox News as you mention. Biblical morality may be contradictory and used to justify terrible things (mainly religious conflicts), but one thing you won't see conservatives here giving air time is apologetics for incest and pedophilia. The left has a monopoly on that, because they have no foundation for their morality. If you have any examples to prove me wrong on that I'd be happy to see them, but I don't believe you'll find them.

That's not to say that people professing to be conservative don't engage in it, because again, the right is just as eat up in corruption as the left. The difference is in ideology. Corruption aside, the actual ideology of the conservative right in the US is based on traditional western values rooted in Christianity. That is my point.


Do you not think that at the very top of power, there is no "left / right" to them? It is a tool that they wield for exactly the purpose of further ensnaring benefits of one of the oldest conquer strategies in the book. Stop playing their game - everyone only loses at this game and our true adversaries only win.

You're barking up the wrong tree by trying to hammer me with this stuff. Both sides are corrupt. You're preaching to the choir. Again, I was a huge critic of Bush.

The ideologies are not equally perverse. That is my point.

Traditional Republicanism was the ideology of our founding fathers, that most people today don't seem to have read or understand. The modern left is founded on Marxism. We can have a big discussion on this if you want.



... A true conservative, a champion of traditional family values, would never put up with this garbage for 5 minutes and you know it.

And what ... a "true liberal" gathers all the kids around to enjoy stories of pedophilia every night?

Liberals have arbitrary morals and are extremely secular. I don't care personally care what people do in their bedrooms, but there is a reason that the left pushed the legalization of gay marriage first. That reason is, again, because they have arbitrary morality.

There are some free online college/university courses at coursera.org if you want to know more about the foundations of western civilization and how far detached modern liberals have become from that.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

He pointed out that parties and platform are for public consumption, to make it appear to the public as if there was an actual difference. A few crumbs and loaves are tossed here and there to keep up the illusion -- and that is all it is.

I 100% understand this level of things, but what you are not getting is the philosophical level of the actual political ideologies. Corrupt politicians and political systems aside, there is a long history and tradition of both ideologies and they are different from each other. Even many "sheeple" realize that much.

Right-wingers and left-wingers don't actually promote the same policies in public, even if they end up voting for the same things (which you don't see happening now in the US, btw).

If you don't understand the fundamental differences in the ideologies of a Republican and a Marxist then it wouldn't matter whether or not it was all a puppet show, because you wouldn't know what ideas you would actually be voting for anyway.

[Franny]

I understand what you're saying quite well. However, ultimately, those at the top are the ones who decide what the policies are and what they vote into law. That's my point.

[DeDukshyn]

My issue is that you added potentially inflammatory politically charged words to the article were none existed.

Why does pointing out that the BBC is leftist make it inflammatory for you? You don't think people on the far left are beyond criticism do you? So why should it be necessary to temper all criticism of the left with equal doses of criticism of the right? It has the effect of dismissing anything critical coming out of modern liberalism, which is a huge problem.

When Bush and Blair were in office I was just as critical of the neo-cons, though even the "right" in Britain is still on the left compared to the US. Actually the two systems really aren't even compatible because we have never been openly socialist and neither have ever been a monarchy. But I hope you get my point, which is that I'm not a fan of either side of the political establishment.

That doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade. There is no reason for you to be triggered by the word "leftist" any more than by the word "neo-con."


I don't disagree that BBC is likely more left leaning, but in order to not be sucked into that divide and conquer strategy we need to stop painting pictures of "leftist" and "rightist" and (although not here) terms like "lib-tard" and "contard". They do nothing but add to the divide and conquer strategies the elite want you to use against your fellow humans. It is their control mechanism -- not ours.

I'm already way ahead of you on this brother. We gutted our establishment right-wing neo-cons when we put Trump in office. We just have to clean out Congress now. Britain is a different story.

Leftists at this point are far more dangerous than the crumbling neo-con establishment, for the same reason that China is a much more oppressive nation than Russia. The radical left has all the same negative qualities of the neo-cons except they are much more socially oppressive using political correctness to stifle free speech and simultaneously normalize absurd stuff like this "I raped my 8 year old daughters and they loved it" filth that they allowed to go on for nearly 5 minutes.

If you try to mention the fact that Islamic immigrants in Britain abuse women and children at an extremely disproportionate rate, the BBC hosts will flip out and shut you down in an instant. But then if you come on and talk about how great it was to rape your daughter they'll give you 5 minutes.


Was it inappropriate for this presenter to allow the conversation to go on for five minutes? Probably - I don't know

If it's so hard for you to decide if this was a mistake or not, help me understand how this could have been appropriate then. Explain to me why even giving this guy 30 seconds to say this stuff would have been appropriate.


Fox News, a right leaning station, is notorious for airing inappropriate crap. So is this really a "left - right" article? Story? Problem? Or did you just attempt to turn it into one?

For better or worse, whether you like it or not (and I have a feeling you don't like it), right-wingers get their morality much more from the Bible than liberals do, at least in the United States where we have Fox News as you mention. Biblical morality may be contradictory and used to justify terrible things (mainly religious conflicts), but one thing you won't see conservatives here giving air time is apologetics for incest and pedophilia. The left has a monopoly on that, because they have no foundation for their morality. If you have any examples to prove me wrong on that I'd be happy to see them, but I don't believe you'll find them.

That's not to say that people professing to be conservative don't engage in it, because again, the right is just as eat up in corruption as the left. The difference is in ideology. Corruption aside, the actual ideology of the conservative right in the US is based on traditional western values rooted in Christianity. That is my point.


Do you not think that at the very top of power, there is no "left / right" to them? It is a tool that they wield for exactly the purpose of further ensnaring benefits of one of the oldest conquer strategies in the book. Stop playing their game - everyone only loses at this game and our true adversaries only win.

You're barking up the wrong tree by trying to hammer me with this stuff. Both sides are corrupt. You're preaching to the choir. Again, I was a huge critic of Bush.

The ideologies are not equally perverse. That is my point.

Traditional Republicanism was the ideology of our founding fathers, that most people today don't seem to have read or understand. The modern left is founded on Marxism. We can have a big discussion on this if you want.



... A true conservative, a champion of traditional family values, would never put up with this garbage for 5 minutes and you know it.

And what ... a "true liberal" gathers all the kids around to enjoy stories of pedophilia every night?

Liberals have arbitrary morals and are extremely secular. I don't care personally care what people do in their bedrooms, but there is a reason that the left pushed the legalization of gay marriage first. That reason is, again, because they have arbitrary morality.

There are some free online college/university courses at coursera.org if you want to know more about the foundations of western civilization and how far detached modern liberals have become from that.


I've clearly and surgically made points about exactly what I found to be issues with you OP. You want to argue different points. You have really explained yourself though - my speculation regarding this comment I made:

"But if you believe the former outright, than I suppose the added politically charged comments would make sense ... to you ..."
appears to be an accurate assessment. The elite's strategies are so easy to understand, it is claimed, but apparently so difficult to not promote.


Just like I don't want to see avalon used as a platform to promote individuals religious beliefs, I think we can do better than use it to promote political beliefs. You may disagree -- fine.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Just like I don't want to see avalon used as a platform to promote individuals religious beliefs, I think we can do better than use it to promote political beliefs. You may disagree -- fine.

Politics is one of those fields like philosophy, history or art. It can relate to anything and everything else. Saying that Project Avalon is free from religious beliefs is a very narrow-minded view. I see stuff here all the time about souls and reincarnation and channeling and various other stuff like that. You can call all that whatever you want but it's all the same topics that religions address. You are creating artificial distinctions when you claim these things aren't the same as religion. In the same way when we talk about current events we are inevitably talking about political ideologies.


To better illustrate the real differences I'm talking about, here are a few differences between Marxism and traditional US conservatism.


Marxism:

Strong central authority with broad powers
Group justice (ie social justice), based on the assumption of endless class (or racial) conflict
High tax rates in order to pay for numerous social welfare programs
Government dictates morality through political correctness (aka Cultural Marxism, aka the Frankfurt School of thought)
Freedom of religion is suppressed (using political correctness, for being offensive, intolerant, etc.); religion is the "opiate of the masses"
Freedom of speech is suppressed (using political correctness, for being dangerous, hateful, etc.)



Traditional US conservatism/Republicanism:

Central authority's powers are "few and defined" (James Madison's words)
Individual rights are the focus
Low federal tax rates because the feds have no authority for social programs; those are left to the states
Morality is derived from traditional western values, including Judeo-Christian and classical liberal Renaissance/Enlightenment values
Freedom of religion is guaranteed with minimal restrictions
Freedom of speech is guaranteed with minimal restrictions


The part in red is why modern-day leftists are more likely to promote new sexual norms, including pedophilia, than conservatives.

If you don't believe that Marxists are interested in centrally dictating morality then just look at the thought police of Communist China, or the censors of the Soviet Union, or (today) all the liberals and European governments demanding censorship on Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc. Just like China. Why? Because they say group rights (social justice), and the right not to be offended by what someone says (as if whether or not you are offended by something is someone else's fault -- not taking responsibility for their own emotions), is more important than free speech.


Here are some others going over the same stuff in different words:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQGNvKRWvig


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJZWNkJrKJc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNyXxzt6DAA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ7zm_KRG9E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agCv0GKBL7E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ml8mgxtuU



And Jimmy Savile worked for the BBC. They covered up what he was doing for 30 years.

DeDukshyn, you said you don't know whether or not letting that guy go on for 5 minutes about raping his daughters was appropriate or not. Were you ever able to come up with a good argument for how that could in any conceivable way be socially acceptable to broadcast to millions of people?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I understand what you're saying quite well. However, ultimately, those at the top are the ones who decide what the policies are and what they vote into law. That's my point.

That may have been the case for a number of years, but to assume that will always be the case is just a defeatist attitude.

We have held our leaders accountable in the past and we can do it again. We already have our foot solidly in the door. And then we better know what we are voting for, which means understanding the real difference between "right" and "left."

[DeDukshyn]

I see you have quite a religious passion for your political views.

My mom is a liberal. And an expressive Christian. Oddly conflicting, eh?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I'm actually not religious myself. I just have respect for people who have principles and the backbone to stand up for them.

Even odder, eh?

[DeDukshyn]

I'm actually not religious myself. I just have respect for people who have principles and the backbone to stand up for them.

Even odder, eh?

But those people can't be liberals? You've spent a fair bit of time trying to convince me of that. No one is arguing your self proclaimed bigotry.

[ErtheVessel]

Just wanted to toss this in, that anyone "calling from jail" is a bit suspicious to me. I live in California, not the UK, so I can't say for sure what it is like there. I have, however, had the experience of speaking on the phone with a prisoner on death row (which, granted, might be different from "jail"). But from that experience I learned that phone call times and durations are extremely restricted. I did not hear the program in question so I don't know if some of this might have actually been evident, but it seems like there should have been at least some restrictions on this so-called prisoner making a phone-in call to the BBC? Could he really pick up the phone at will and talk for as long as he wanted? Maybe. The whole set-up seems suspicious, but maybe I just don't have all the facts.

[Mike]

pedophilia is a horrific symptom of a much larger problem. i think most of us here are aware of that. the left/right paradigm is also a symptom of a much larger problem. most of us are aware of that too.

any productive conversation here has to establish those 2 things from the outset.

pedophilia transcends left/right politics by a mile. and the bigger picture transcends both pedophilia and the left/right nonsense by a mile. reducing them both to their basest form is going to get nothing but sh!tty, base conversation....limited in scope and depth, and divisive and inflammatory to boot. why do that?

this election has brought out the worst in people. ive been here for quite a few years now, and i cant recall a time when "left" n "right" butting of the heads has ever occurred with such alarming frequency. i thought we outgrew that bit eons ago. we set that toy aside in our infancy. and here we are now, many years later, digging our dolls and teddy bears out of the toy chest again. why?

its a disquieting mainstream infiltration of the alternative media. im usually the last to utter the phrase "psy op"..but it makes me wonder.

i'm not suggesting we pretend that there isnt a right/left political dynamic. we need matrixy terms to describe the matrix, and what occurs there. im suggesting we dont descend to its level, and debate and converse on its level... because we'll only get that low level, heavy, sluggish, spiritually toxic, vibrationally slow, sense deadening, exclusively above the shoulders FOX news type vomit that we already get plenty of on the radio and the tv and the net...

..i come here to escape all that sh!t. it just doesnt belong here in my opinion. i think it violates a certain standard that we try to set here. its a corruption of the spirit of the place.

my 2 cents

[onawah]

Agreed, Mike. I've grown really weary of having Trump be the main subject of so many threads.
Politics is a very 3D subject, and Avalon is usually much more dimensional and less toxic than it has been in examining such a subject, but not lately.
Just to add something obvious on the topic of this thread, perhaps the BBC thing had something to do with the elite's plan to accustom the public to accepting pedophilia, and they were using that to test the waters?

[BMJ]

Just to add something obvious on the topic of this thread, perhaps the BBC thing had something to do with the elite's plan to accustom the public to accepting pedophilia, and they were using that to test the waters?

And gauge the public's reaction and acceptance or rejection of this pratice.

[turiya]

Just wanted to toss this in, that anyone "calling from jail" is a bit suspicious to me. I live in California, not the UK, so I can't say for sure what it is like there. I have, however, had the experience of speaking on the phone with a prisoner on death row (which, granted, might be different from "jail"). But from that experience I learned that phone call times and durations are extremely restricted. I did not hear the program in question so I don't know if some of this might have actually been evident, but it seems like there should have been at least some restrictions on this so-called prisoner making a phone-in call to the BBC? Could he really pick up the phone at will and talk for as long as he wanted? Maybe. The whole set-up seems suspicious, but maybe I just don't have all the facts.

True what you say. The BBSC has always had a thing for adding a melodramatic flare to their propaganda pieces. Not to mention that put out a bit of "fake news" themselves, for that matter.



Morality is derived from traditional western values, including Judeo-Christian and classical liberal Renaissance/Enlightenment values

I think the source of your internal conflict towards "leftists" can be found in your previous statement. Morality actually has a deeper root source if you care to look at it from a point of higher understanding.

Joe

Without showing or saying much of anything on this thread, I don't see how or where it shows that you have been appointed the judge, much less be capable to determine who has won this argument. Simply saying AVFTM lost the debate only shows you identify with being "leftist"... which doesn't support your claim of positioning yourself on a pedestal of having achieved "a point of a higher understanding."

I'd would be interested in having you make good on that particular claim of yours - In other words, as those from the State of Missouri would say "Show Me!"

[kirolak]

Usually for live call-in radio, there is a 5-second delay button which can be pressed if there is a concern with the caller's views (or there was, in my day :( ) But as someone suggested, perhaps there was a plan to keep the monster talking long enough for a tracer to be put on the call; if he were just cut off, there would be no way to follow up & perhaps arrest him. EDIT: I just realized he was apparently KNOWN to be in jail; read this at work but responded now:silent:

PS I am rather amused that the BBC should be viewed as Left Wing, it was always seen as a bastion of right wing, Establishment opinion!

[DeDukshyn]

... Trim ...



Morality is derived from traditional western values, including Judeo-Christian and classical liberal Renaissance/Enlightenment values

I think the source of your internal conflict towards "leftists" can be found in your previous statement. Morality actually has a deeper root source if you care to look at it from a point of higher understanding.

Joe

Without showing or saying much of anything on this thread, I don't see how or where it shows that you have been appointed the judge, much less be capable to determine who has won this argument. Simply saying AVFTM lost the debate only shows you identify with being "leftist"... which doesn't support your claim of positioning yourself on a pedestal of having achieved "a point of a higher understanding."

I'd would be interested in having you make good on that particular claim of yours - In other words, as those from the State of Missouri would say "Show Me!"

What do you believe this debate was about? If you believe it was about who is better, "left vs right" as AVFTM would have you believe (and the only topic he attempted to debate), then you missed the entire point of what was being debated, as well as missed the point of Joe's comment. Joe indicated that AVFTM lost the debate with "himself" as is relevant, because the points I was debating were different from the ones AVFTM was.

AVFTM was debating how right leaning people are proper examples of humans, and how left leaning people are the problems for the world, causing pedophilia etc. I was only debating the appropriateness of purposefully taking a non political article and story (source for OP), and purposefully adding potentially inflammatory remarks in both the thread title and in the body, to smear an incredibly wide swath of people and attempting to associate these people with the issue of pedophilia - all of which was created by the OP with his altered thread title and subsequent comments. That is not only inappropriate (and in my opinion below Avalon standards), it brings a whole bunch of people who have aligned themselves to this political BS, to come running to defense, and while everyone claims they can see past this divide and conquer strategy, the comments will easily reveal otherwise - potentially both directions, I will admit, but you misread Joe's comment.

I've been objectively on the other side of this as well (defending "right-wing minded" people for their right to carry arms, when "liberal" minded people try to equate them with murderers) - I speak up when I see people using the divide and conquer strategies that only serve the "elite" against their fellow humans and Avalon. Left / Right - makes no difference to me and I will always stand up for this. This is what the debate was about, regardless of where AVFTM tried to carry it.

[norman]

PS I am rather amused that the BBC should be viewed as Left Wing, it was always seen as a bastion of right wing, Establishment opinion!



As I see it, the BBC is a master of putting an establishment mask on carefully selected progressive ideas. It doesn't matter how nuts or unsubstantiated an ideal is, if the BBC adopts it, it will sound established and even slightly conservative. A couple of examples; Man made climate change, Islam is a religion of peace, oh and sexuality is an identity relativistic thing.

Continuity announcers and news readers are carefully trained ( and selected ) to make everything they say sound like "Mum". Most British people are raised as 'breast fed' mind babies by mother Beeb.

[sheme]

The thing I hate more than most things are Liberal Lefties who tell me I should accept their reasoning because I am obviously prejudice- Yes and I am proud to be prejudice against all that pretends to be good when it is blatently EVIL . If it looks evil, smells evil, does evil, and encourages evil, I know it is evil.

[DeDukshyn]

The thing I hate more than most things are Liberal Lefties who tell me I should accept their reasoning because I am obviously prejudice- Yes and I am proud to be prejudice against all that pretends to be good when it is blatently EVIL . If it looks evil, smells evil, does evil, and encourages evil, I know it is evil.

:doublefacepalm: Why not just go ask the elite if you can get on their payroll? Might as well get paid for it. lol.

[sheme]

Why would they pay me when you will do it for free?

[turiya]

... Trim ...



Morality is derived from traditional western values, including Judeo-Christian and classical liberal Renaissance/Enlightenment values

I think the source of your internal conflict towards "leftists" can be found in your previous statement. Morality actually has a deeper root source if you care to look at it from a point of higher understanding.

Joe

Without showing or saying much of anything on this thread, I don't see how or where it shows that you have been appointed the judge, much less be capable to determine who has won this argument. Simply saying AVFTM lost the debate only shows you identify with being "leftist"... which doesn't support your claim of positioning yourself on a pedestal of having achieved "a point of a higher understanding."

I'd would be interested in having you make good on that particular claim of yours - In other words, as those from the State of Missouri would say "Show Me!"

What do you believe this debate was about? If you believe it was about who is better, "left vs right" as AVFTM would have you believe (and the only topic he attempted to debate), then you missed the entire point of what was being debated, as well as missed the point of Joe's comment. Joe indicated that AVFTM lost the debate with "himself" as is relevant, because the points I was debating were different from the ones AVFTM was.

AVFTM was debating how right leaning people are proper examples of humans, and how left leaning people are the problems for the world, causing pedophilia etc. I was only debating the appropriateness of purposefully taking a non political article and story (source for OP), and purposefully adding potentially inflammatory remarks in both the thread title and in the body, to smear an incredibly wide swath of people and attempting to associate these people with the issue of pedophilia - all of which was created by the OP with his altered thread title and subsequent comments. That is not only inappropriate (and in my opinion below Avalon standards), it brings a whole bunch of people who have aligned themselves to this political BS, to come running to defense, and while everyone claims they can see past this divide and conquer strategy, the comments will easily reveal otherwise - potentially both directions, I will admit, but you misread Joe's comment.

I've been objectively on the other side of this as well (defending "right-wing minded" people for their right to carry arms, when "liberal" minded people try to equate them with murderers) - I speak up when I see people using the divide and conquer strategies that only serve the "elite" against their fellow humans and Avalon. Left / Right - makes no difference to me and I will always stand up for this. This is what the debate was about, regardless of where AVFTM tried to carry it.

My response was to Joe who, by his word usage, claims to have attained a point of "higher understanding." I would like to have him show this, or better, to explain what he means by saying this. And also, show where & how he has received the appointment to judge who had won & lost such a debate. I don't see any reason to be bothered with your inquiry, as from past encounters with you, I see no value in getting caught up within the quagmire of your world of thought processing. Like most people you also have a tendency to overlay your own incorrect perception onto what is said by another. So forgive me, if I don't choose to get wrapped up with your desire to attain to a similar plateau that Joe claims to have attained.

The world of mind has a tendency to run to the extreme ends of the black / white, right / left, good / bad spectrum. Physical reality has more shades of gray to it than mind will generally want to find acceptable. In fact, right & left are only relative positions to take. If one chooses to observe one's own mind, one will find that moving right to left, left to right, is quite normal & natural during the course of any given day - in fact, it quite normally happens numerous times, on any given issue, at any given moment of time. If one attempts to stick to one end of the philosophical / psychological spectrum, one will eventually become more & more a mentally imbalanced & mentally dis-eased state.

Mind is meant to change. That's what mind does. It changes. It also is meant to change as one gains experience as one goes & continues to grow through living a life. Its often called, and inappropriately so, as being poliitcally incorrect!

Often times our societies, with the social mores put in place, imposes unnatural restrictions on the health & well-being of the individuals that make up & play their part of any society. This is done without providing a way for individuals to remain healthy, or to retain their health, to be able to live joyfully, while they continue playing out their active social roles. The society may appear to be healthy & whole, but it comes at the cost of having its individual members' loosing their own physical & mental health & well-being. Because of this, societies may appear to be healthy, but at their core are sick & diseased. Things start coming out in the wash usually when individuals grow older.

Paedophilia is just one fruit of a sick society....
Even the mind of a radio show host changes, through his life experience...


BBC Is Blasted Letting Paedophile Prisoner Boast
On BBC Radio Manchester & BBC Radio Lancashire!
(Published on Mar 18, 2017)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNXHQu-civQ

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Morality is derived from traditional western values, including Judeo-Christian and classical liberal Renaissance/Enlightenment values

I think the source of your internal conflict towards "leftists" can be found in your previous statement. Morality actually has a deeper root source if you care to look at it from a point of higher understanding.

The quote above is, IMO, the reason you lost whatever debate you are having with yourself in this thread.

Morality is actually not a hard science, so for you to suggest that morality comes from the same place for everyone seems indefensible for me, unless you would like to add some more substance to your cryptic post and give it a try.

Notice that I gave a difference source for morality under Marxist government than for conservative US political ideology. In the Middle East they have a very different view of morality, and the same in India. Who is right and who is wrong, and who makes you the arbiter? I would say no everyone is their own arbiter and you don't have the right to tell anyone what the "real" source of morality is.

All I'm doing is pointing out that Marxist governments try to dictate morality arbitrarily through political correctness, which is horrendous. What is good today may be illegal tomorrow and vice versa, for no rhyme or reason other than political expediency, and that kind of inconsistency and lack of virtue leads to serious cultural decay. Read Orwell's 1984 for an example of that, his book being about a technological Marxist government taken to its conclusion.

[Mike]

turiya, joe demonstrated his higher understanding with his statement....a statement that requires very little explaining, as the meaning is quite obvious. if its already been reduced to its simplest form, how much more explaining can he possibly do? he wasnt declaring himself "better", or declaring "winners" and "losers". this was your own misunderstanding..or projection. and its very much in line with the "black n white" thinking that you actually did a brilliant job of dissecting in the rest of your post! so theres a bit of a contradiction here!

the left/right thing is a total charade. im shocked and embarrassed that i even feel the need to point this out at this point of the game. id no more blame the "right" for 911 than i would blame the "left" for Obamacare..or the deficit. theyre all f#cking puppets...their policies are dictated not by them or their so called party, but by a very sinister group of shadowy entities in banking and industry..and, if youre willing to go there, otherworldly influences. i mean, this is conspiracy 101 guys!

its easy to get caught up in it...i get it! i really do! socially, im more liberal, or "left" leaning...and listening to "right" leaning conservatives can profoundly annoy me at times. but all it is is a *trigger fest*..each side trying to trigger the other with broad generalizations and blatant exaggerations, all while accusing the other side of doing the same exact thing while denying any such behavior themselves. its a circle of madness. thats it. thats all it is.

the only question left is: will you take the bait? will you allow yourself to be triggered? will you allow yourself to be sucked into what is essentially a *manufactured* fight, designed only to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while the bastards in power keep screwing us over while we're too consumed with trivial issues like who can piss in a womens bathroom and who cant?

you choose

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I'm actually not religious myself. I just have respect for people who have principles and the backbone to stand up for them.

Even odder, eh?

But those people can't be liberals? You've spent a fair bit of time trying to convince me of that. No one is arguing your self proclaimed bigotry.

No, you're just putting words in my mouth because you've ran out of other arguments apparently.

Apples are fruits. Does that mean oranges can't be fruits too then? Come on man.

It would be more to the point if you could find a conservative American ideologue normalizing pedophilia in the same way that leftists do, like the Salon newspaper for example, or even the New York Times.

On Salon's Much-Maligned Pedophilia Piece (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424373/salons-much-maligned-pedophilia-piece-charles-c-w-cooke) (the original Salon piece was apparently taken down after backlash)

New York Times: Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html)

The Washington Post, NYT and ABC all removed their articles on a recent pedophilia ring bust in Scandinavia too (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5hiz28/nyt_washington_post_abc_take_down_their_article/), as MSM put a black out on that story for some reason.

There's no mystery why things are like this. The question is if this is really the direction we want to take our culture. What will the consequences of this be?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

AVFTM was debating how right leaning people are proper examples of humans, and how left leaning people are the problems for the world, causing pedophilia etc.

That's a total mischaracterization of what I'm saying, and putting more words in my mouth. Conservatives are just as able to make mistakes as anyone else, but you should be in agreement with me that conservatives are much more likely to have a more biblical viewpoint. Even if you don't agree with that, there are plenty of studies that show it and it's mostly common sense to everyone else.

Again, that doesn't mean conservatives don't make mistakes. What it does mean is that they are more likely to derive morality from the Bible, which advocates protecting children as commonly interpreted (select baby-bashing Bible verses aside, which no one promotes anyway), than liberals are. Liberal morality is more likely to be based on nothing at all except political expediency and so it changes as the social cause of the day changes, whether it be the environment or the right to kill unborn babies or whatever.

This isn't hard stuff, but I can understand how it might be a hard pill to swallow for someone who has convinced themselves on some level that it's leftists who are actual the superior ideologues. Too much of anything is bad, and their poop stinks too, and can stink even worse in many cases.

[turiya]

turiya, joe demonstrated his higher understanding with his statement....a statement that requires very little explaining, as the meaning is quite obvious. if its already been reduced to its simplest form, how much more explaining can he possibly do? he wasnt declaring himself "better", or declaring "winners" and "losers". this was your own misunderstanding..or projection. and its very much in line with the "black n white" thinking that you actually did a brilliant job of dissecting in the rest of your post! so theres a bit of a contradiction here!

the left/right thing is a total charade. im shocked and embarrassed that i even feel the need to point this out at this point of the game. id no more blame the "right" for 911 than i would blame the "left" for Obamacare..or the deficit. theyre all f#cking puppets...their policies are dictated not by them or their so called party, but by a very sinister group of shadowy entities in banking and industry..and, if youre willing to go there, otherworldly influences. i mean, this is conspiracy 101 guys!

its easy to get caught up in it...i get it! i really do! socially, im more liberal, or "left" leaning...and listening to "right" leaning conservatives can profoundly annoy me at times. but all it is is a *trigger fest*..each side trying to trigger the other with broad generalizations and blatant exaggerations, all while accusing the other side of doing the same exact thing while denying any such behavior themselves. its a circle of madness. thats it. thats all it is.

the only question left is: will you take the bait? will you allow yourself to be triggered? will you allow yourself to be sucked into what is essentially a *manufactured* fight, designed only to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while the bastards in power keep screwing us over while we're too consumed with trivial issues like who can piss in a womens bathroom and who cant?

you choose

Hey Mike

Joe has not demonstrated anything, but only written some words, without showing anything about his own "higher understanding".

When somebody says the following:

"Morality actually has a deeper root source if you care to look at it from a point of higher understanding."

In order to make this statement Joe would had to have reached "a point in higher understanding" in order for him to make such a claim, otherwise he is merely talking BS & not something he has experienced for himself. I am simply asking him to demonstrate it, period.

Sorry if you are not getting this point in simple logic.

Enough & Good day.

[ceetee9]

... exclusively above the shoulders FOX news type vomit that we already get plenty of on the radio and the tv and the net...Damn Mike, you had me all the way until you injected that statement. It appears even you can't get passed the right/left thing as well. Maybe we ALL better review our "beliefs/values" systems from whence we came.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Yes, people tell themselves they're so enlightened that they're now 100% "above" the right/left paradigm, yet they still have so much unprocessed baggage with it that I can't even point out demonstrable behavioral/thought patterns between the two strains of ideologies without triggering people. People don't think straight on politics and the worst part is when they project their own problems onto others and can't see themselves in that mirror. I'll be the first to admit policy and ideology I disagree with from any party or candidate, Trump included, though I make no effort to hide or appear "more enlightened" than to state my general support for him.

The Bush-era Republican establishment is already dead, thank God. (The word "God" isn't triggering too now is it? I can replace it with a New Age term if that makes people feel better.) The other half of the rotting system will be dead soon enough.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

You may find Mark Passio's, Natural Law Seminar of interest. He goes into the topics of moral relativism, and origins of evil, etc. in great detail. http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/podcast?start=150


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUHN3gNxWo

Thanks Joe. This is getting at the underlying philosophy of ideas we have. This is what I like.

I also found a shorter video he does on moral relativism here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8-FekleBo4

[Mike]

... exclusively above the shoulders FOX news type vomit that we already get plenty of on the radio and the tv and the net...Damn Mike, you had me all the way until you injected that statement. It appears even you can't get passed the right/left thing as well. Maybe we ALL better review our "beliefs/values" systems from whence we came.



Hey ceetee youve got a good point there!:)

I'm glad you pointed it out. I'm not above the fray. Im just as triggerable as anyone else. I took the bait of the OP.

But in all honesty, I dont necessarily loathe Fox news because theyre conservative, I loathe them because I feel they are the worst perpetrator of everything I included in that sentence. They have a habit of reducing everything to its basest and most black n white worst. Theres very little nuance there. Thats why I used them as a metaphor for this thread.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Fox News really showed their true colors under the Bush administration. It's easy enough to criticize Obama for all of his horrendous policies, but when they were unapologetically kissing Bush's ass for the same kind of stuff before that, it showed their purpose as controlled opposition. Murdoch is said to be a straight-up NWO globalist but I do think the network is beginning to hedge their bets on the future with people like Judge Jeanine and Tucker Carlson. At least those two seem to have no filter and don't try to weaselishly feign neutrality like 90% of the others.

There is a documentary called "OutFoxed" that shows how all the major talking points on Fox were handed down from corporate executives, everything was scripted and fake. Other than the two people I just mentioned I'd say that this is still the case.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk

The only bad thing about this documentary is that you have to put up with looking at asshats like David Brock (of Clinton campaign infamy, James Alefantis' ex boyfriend and friend of the Rothschilds) and Al Franken. David Brock is guilty of the same and worse on behalf of George Soros for the radical left.

[ceetee9]

Fox News really showed their true colors under the Bush administration. It's easy enough to criticize Obama for all of his horrendous policies, but when they were unapologetically kissing Bush's ass for the same kind of stuff before that, it showed their purpose as controlled opposition.Yes, but that's no different than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, etc. They ALL have an agenda (which is essentially to keep the masses firmly divided and digging their heels ever deeper into their belief system(s) (political, religious, etc.) while the controllers continue their raping and pillaging and laughing at us all. In reality, there isn't any real difference between any of the MSM outlets. They all get their marching orders from the true powers-that-be and are handed their scripts from the AP (Associated Press)--as if those were the ONLY stories worth publishing on any given day. It's pretty easy to switch between the MSM channels and hear the same stories and often the same words within seconds of one another. The reporters NEVER ask any intelligent or probing questions, but only questions that serve their agenda--which is generally designed to inflame their viewers emotions to maintain the divisiveness among the slaves. They play all of us for fools with their left vs right BS and we all buy into it--as is quite evident even among many Avalonians.

And for the record, I'm not attempting to point fingers here as I've been conditioned/programmed (for decades) the same as everyone else. But I do, at least, attempt to shed that programming as much as possible. I'm not always successful though as it's not an easy task.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The only thing that I would add to that is that despite the hijacking of our political parties, there are major historical and philosophical differences between the concept of a constitutional republic and the concept of a socialist Marxist state, and with everything else in the political world removed from the equation, these differences are fundamental and still require attention and discernment. The MSM may all be controlled opposition but that does not mean that the concepts of a strong central government and a very restrained central government are therefore the same thing, because obviously they are not.

[Mike]

The only thing that I would add to that is that despite the hijacking of our political parties, there are major historical and philosophical differences between the concept of a constitutional republic and the concept of a socialist Marxist state, and with everything else in the political world removed from the equation, these differences are fundamental and still require attention and discernment. The MSM may all be controlled opposition but that does not mean that the concepts of a strong central government and a very restrained central government are therefore the same thing, because obviously they are not.


i see what youre saying. but again, youre assuming the texbook best of the "right" while assuming the stereotypical worst of the "left". youve bought in to all the exaggerations and fear based accusations from the "right" (the profoundly tiresome "socialist, marxist bit) and have suggested erroneously and purposefully that they are the foundational principles of the democratic party in order to take yet another cheap political shot here...

theres this new trend of party over country, and its disturbing. maybe its been around all along; maybe im just noticing it.

its hard to have this dialogue. im not sure whats "left" anymore and whats "right". i mean, im socially left leaning but fiscally conservative. i like trump's obvious msm disdain and seeming willingness to out political criminals, but i also think he's a f#cking clown. nuance, see? political parties don't allow for that. you have to think this way, or you have to think that way..nothing in between. people blindly embrace it. like when the pope arbitrarily changes 2000 yr old catholic dogma, and the flock unquestionably goes along with it...party members are required to do the same thing. political parties are religions man. they discourage critical, independent thinking and expect you to embrace party ideology. before they even know what the new party rhetoric is, theyve embraced it..much like a mindless religionist embraces faith without question. its a sickness. proudly declaring party loyalty is akin to proudly declaring your latest frontal lobotomy.

now, if youd started by proudly declaring your love of a constitutional republic, and left the "right/left" stuff out of it, i woulda been a little more supportive. the parties love to co opt these ideas and exploit them for political leverage, but it means nothing. the "right" thinks they own 9/11, and they used this shamelessly to pass laws like the hugely ironic "patriot act". they think they own the constitution too. hate to shatter your illusion, but the average "lefty" is just as horrified by 9/11 as any "righty", and is equally desirous of a constitutional republic.

so yes, there are differences, but theyre not nearly as dramatic as the msm makes them out to be. but by allowing them to trigger us, we become just as bad as they are. and that's what "they" want.

the problem i have with the OP is that it politicizes pedophilia. it exploits pedophilia in order to take a cheap swing at "lefties"...and is therefore insincere at best and morally egregious at worst. not only that, its posture automatically triggers an "us against them" mentality, which will only divide us further and take us further from the truth. we can't fight each other and fight "them" at the same time...and thats exactly what "they" want.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

i see what youre saying. but again, youre assuming the texbook best of the "right" while assuming the stereotypical worst of the "left". youve bought in to all the exaggerations and fear based accusations from the "right" (the profoundly tiresome "socialist, marxist bit) and have suggested erroneously and purposefully that they are the foundational principles of the democratic party in order to take yet another cheap political shot here...

I don't see what the pot shot is brother. I just posted links and a bunch of videos giving examples of how it's people from the ideological left, through relative morality, who are trying to normalize this stuff, from both left-wing and right-wing sources. Republican politicians are just as involved behind closed doors but you won't ever see them trying to peddle this stuff because their Bible-thumping constituents would chase them out of their districts.

I think I have stated that simply enough and yet for some reason it seems to still trigger people into virtue signalling how much more enlightened they are than me because they refuse to even come off their high horse to acknowledge any distinction whatsoever in ideology between the right and left. They may both be corrupt but the traditional cores of their platforms are most definitely not the same, as I explained above. In fact I keep explaining myself and nobody who is complaining seems to even be paying attention to what I am actually saying.

Whether you want to believe him or not, the former US House Majority Leader Tom DeLay even went on record saying that the Department of Justice had a "secret memo" prioritizing the normalization of what he called "twelve perversions," including pedophilia.


“We’ve already found a secret memo coming out of the Justice Department,” DeLay said. “They’re now going to go after 12 new perversions, things like bestiality, polygamy, having sex with little boys and making that legal. Not only that, but they have a whole list of strategies to go after the churches, the pastors, and any businesses that tries to assert their religious liberty. This is coming and it’s coming like a tidal wave.”

http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1394679/tom-delay-bestiality-pedophilia-department-of-justice/

This is a mainstream news source and it's a former House Majority Leader who is making the claim. Between that, all the other videos and articles and the OP itself, with a BBC host letting this guy go on for 5 minutes about this crap, at some point any rational human being should realize there actually is a pattern going on here.



its hard to have this dialogue. im not sure whats "left" anymore and whats "right". i mean, im socially left leaning but fiscally conservative. i like trump's obvious msm disdain and seeming willingness to out political criminals, but i also think he's a f#cking clown. nuance, see? political parties don't allow for that. you have to think this way, or you have to think that way..nothing in between. people blindly embrace it. like when the pope arbitrarily changes 2000 yr old catholic dogma, and the flock unquestionably goes along with it...party members are required to do the same thing. political parties are religions man. they discourage critical, independent thinking and expect you to embrace party ideology. before they even know what the new party rhetoric is, theyve embraced it..much like a mindless religionist embraces faith without question. its a sickness. proudly declaring party loyalty is akin to proudly declaring your latest frontal lobotomy.

now, if youd started by proudly declaring your love of a constitutional republic, and left the "right/left" stuff out of it, i woulda been a little more supportive. the parties love to co opt these ideas and exploit them for political leverage, but it means nothing. the "right" thinks they own 9/11, and they used this shamelessly to pass laws like the hugely ironic "patriot act". they think they own the constitution too. hate to shatter your illusion, but the average "lefty" is just as horrified by 9/11 as any "righty", and is equally desirous of a constitutional republic.

so yes, there are differences, but theyre not nearly as dramatic as the msm makes them out to be. but by allowing them to trigger us, we become just as bad as they are. and that's what "they" want.

All this stuff you are going on about is just mainstream political stuff. I'm not concerned with what a bunch of crooks are saying in Washington DC because most everything they tell you is a lie anyway.

I'm a history major. I'm looking at this from the big picture, from the late 1700's onward. All of this stuff didn't just originate yesterday. Unless you know the history of the Jacobins and Marxists in Europe and how the early American republic differentiated itself from these ideologies then you're not going to have a good grasp on how these things have evolved to get us to where we're at today. You won't understand the real philosophical differences underlying these schools of thought. The swamp creatures in Washington are never going to bother explaining it either because it would embarrass all of them.


the problem i have with the OP is that it politicizes pedophilia. it exploits pedophilia in order to take a cheap swing at "lefties"...and is therefore insincere at best and morally egregious at worst.

It just seems to me that you want to say both sides are bad but really you must still feel sympathy on some level for the left, or you wouldn't be complaining about me using the word so much. If it was the neo-cons publicly trying to normalize this stuff (which it isn't, though they engage in it behind closed doors nonetheless) and I trash talked them instead, would you still be here complaining about it? Because I complain about them both.


not only that, its posture automatically triggers an "us against them" mentality, which will only divide us further and take us further from the truth. we can't fight each other and fight "them" at the same time...and thats exactly what "they" want.

If you are against both of them then you shouldn't be triggered no matter which side I attack.

[Ewan]

Fellow UK'ers please correct me if I'm wrong here, as I've mentioned before I'm largely apolitical and have never paid much attention to shifting ideologies over the years, but didn't, traditionally, the BBC lean towards the Tories (trad. right) while the ITV's would be more Labour (trad. left) orientated?

Now it is the 'leftist' BBC?

Did something happen that I was just not paying attention to, has the right been infected by mindless liberalism, (as opposed to considered, grounded liberalism - I think there is a distinction there). Or is (political) liberalism infecting both sides in various ways. It is getting very confusing for me, I see the term neoliberalism being used in the media and elsewhere, is this the infection, where did it come from?

I just toddled off to The Political Compass to check if I still held the same views as previously and yep, there I was still sitting 2 squares away from Ghandi. Politically that apparently makes me Libertarian Left but it seems it would almost be unsafe to tell someone you are a liberal now, aren't they being equated with all the madness? Someone ignorant of history might consider Ghandi as a radical nutcase purely by those labels, (mind you, I suppose some actually do). Didn't many of the so-called intellectuals also inhabit that region, left, liberal. Diametrically opposed to the authoritarian right and domain of Margeret Thatcher. Does this mean I actually am political despite my protestations to the contrary? I didn't like Thatcher much, maybe I've been lying to myself all this time.

Is someone playing with the meanings of liberal in an attempt to confuse me, because it is working.

[norman]

Being a liberal is one thing. I've always been a liberal.

My kind of liberal has been forced to go 'conservative' by a weaponised progressive hijacking of liberal politics. I can now call myself a conservative, and that's something I never thought I would do.

Just about all higher education has been marinated in moral relativism since the 1920s. Primary schools joined in later. At some point, it seems to me, actual education was dropped and that left the background ISM masquerading as education. Add to that an unpayable debt for all students who feel compelled to put themselves through this Orwellian boot camp, and it's arrived at this deadly toxic situation we now find ourselves in.

[Baby Steps]

Fellow UK'ers please correct me if I'm wrong here, as I've mentioned before I'm largely apolitical and have never paid much attention to shifting ideologies over the years, but didn't, traditionally, the BBC lean towards the Tories (trad. right) while the ITV's would be more Labour (trad. left) orientated?

Now it is the 'leftist' BBC?

Did something happen that I was just not paying attention to, has the right has been infected by mindless liberalism, (as opposed to considered, grounded liberalism - I think there is a distinction there). Or is (political) liberalism infecting both sides in various ways. It is getting very confusing for me, I see the term neoliberalism being used in the media and elsewhere, is this the infection, where did it come from?

I just toddled off to The Political Compass to check if I still held the same views as previously and yep, there I was still sitting 2 squares away from Ghandi. Politically that apparently makes me Libertarian Left but it seems it would almost be unsafe to tell someone you are a liberal now, aren't they being equated with all the madness? Someone ignorant of history might consider Ghandi as a radical nutcase purely by those labels, (mind you, I suppose some actually do). Didn't many of the so-called intellectuals also inhabit that region, left, liberal. Diametrically opposed to the authoritarian right and domain of Margeret Thatcher. Does this mean I actually am political despite my protestations to the contrary? I didn't like Thatcher much, maybe I've been lying to myself all this time.

Is someone playing with the meanings of liberal in an attempt to confuse me, because it is working.

He he.

For me it goes like this...

For UK'ers 'liberal' is rooted in the Old Whig party who were progressive, less authoritarian than the Tories, and pro democracy. This is now the UK centre ground, that has morphed into a sludgy group of NWO apologists, who mouth slogans about rights, but would be happy to sign up for whatever corporate dominated supra national soviet was proposed, because not to do so would be racist.

There is another term - 'Neo liberal' which seems to be more economic, and to me represents the little discussed consensus within the EU etc, towards handing power to corporations, and freeing up labour markets. There is good evidence that freer labour markets lead to higher employment. Just compare UK to France, then look at employment protections in those two countries. That argument - that making it easier to hire & fire leads to higher employment holds water. So the EU German dominated bureaucrats are trying to make continental labour markets perform like the UK. The other strand again uses strong evidence for free trade and globalisation- that they generally promote prosperity - to force the corporate agenda on us.

In USA the term liberal seems to denote 'neo-socialist', because it is a more palatable word.

I have generally seen the BBC position as centre. From the USA point of view a European centre position would be seen as left.

The BBC now is being seriously undermined by government influence to the point where it has no more credibility than a communist government news service. We have James Harding, a close friend of George Osbourne running BBC news, and it shows. The service is getting blander, and more on board with the lies every day. Dissent from the Government line rarely happens. This would probably remain the case if we had a Blairite style Labour administration ie one fully compliant with the agenda. The BBC is doing as much as it can to undermine Corbyn, who is NOT on board with the agenda.

The BBC got into alot of trouble for starting to investigate the Pedo scandal, and since then they have left well alone.

They have a Charter including the usual Journalistic obligations. This they obviously flout continuously, and some have won their cases where they refuse to pay the license fee on the basis that 9-11 coverage was fake news. They should be challenged on their Charter, but they are still better than most sadly.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Being a liberal is one thing. I've always been a liberal.

My kind of liberal has been forced to go 'conservative' by a weaponised progressive hijacking of liberal politics. I can now call myself a conservative, and that's something I never thought I would do.

Same here. I used to despise conservatism during the Bush years, but that was really "neo-conservatism" which is just right-wing globalism. Just like the left in the US today isn't truly liberal either but "neo-liberal" or just straight up globalists and Marxists more like.

Classical liberalism is about freedom and liberty. "My freedom ends where yours begins" type of thing, ie you're free to do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else in the process. I like that philosophy. It came out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Classical liberalism began to be hijacked by the Jacobins during the French Revolution and then by the Marxists in the 1800's. It hasn't been the same since.




Is someone playing with the meanings of liberal in an attempt to confuse me, because it is working.

Yes. It's evolved to mean different things in different countries, and has changed over time too. Britain is centered much farther to the left (ie is more socialist) than the US, like Baby Steps said.

In Brazil I believe the socialists are actually considered right-wing, so it can get very confusing. I'm sure on some level at least some of these conflations are on purpose. If you point out that the Nazis were a socialist party, and even called themselves socialists right in their own name, a lot of people will flip out about how "obvious" it is that they were actually on the extreme right and "everybody knows it," etc., but then it goes back to the question of how they are defining the term "right," because again, it means different things in different places. Republicanism in the US is traditionally about very limited government and the Nazis were the exact opposite of that, with a very powerful central government.

Our founding fathers in the US considered themselves liberals but by today's standards their philosophy of government would be way off to the right. Back in the early 1800's the classical liberal Republicans wouldn't even let the federal government build national highways, seeing that as a serious overreach of federal power. Fast forward 200 years and now you have Obama trying to force every American to buy health insurance, and allow men into women's bathrooms. Not quite the same idea of liberalism.

[sheme]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39335904

"A group of 72 MPs have written to the BBC accusing it of being pessimistic and skewed in its Brexit coverage - in the months since the vote on the EU.
In a letter to the director general, they said the BBC is "unfairly representing" Leave voters by focusing on those who regret their decision.
The MPs warned the future of the BBC "will be in doubt" if it is not seen as a impartial broker.

The BBC said it was its job to "scrutinise and analyse" Brexit issues."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/

The Dark festering State is pulling the Beebs strings once again.

[norman]

Those MPs should also ask for the minutes of the meeting that made the decision to transfer the World Service from the foreign office to the BBC itself. And, while they're at it, they should look into the history and the timing of the closure of the propaganda department ( MI 17) a couple of years after the BBC was up and running.

Apologists for the BBC often remark that the BBC must be doing something right if the government is always threatening to cut it's funding. As I see it, that's a bass akwards way of looking at the relationship between the BBC and the government. The government keeps on threatening to cut it's funding to keep it in line and doing it's bidding. The BBC replaced the department of propaganda. Propaganda works best when it's disguised as independent media.

[petra]

This looks like an example of a hyper-dimensional attack to me
It sounds like the radio man was in some kind of temporary trance. What a time to get distracted!
Even when he became "flustered" he allowed it to continue!
I imagine he wondered "what in the heck was I thinking??"
Moral of this story for me? NEVER be too polite.... ;-)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The terms left and right are describing polarities of the same dynamic - collectivism. This is the same way hot and cold are actually measures of polarity for temperature. So the actual true opposite of collectivism is individualism.

I don't believe that is necessarily true. Right and left don't mean the same thing everywhere, like I pointed out above, and neither have they meant the same thing over time, though both admittedly (at least until very recently in the US) are just different flavors of globalism.

The concept of Jeffersonian democracy is also about individualism and is most closely aligned with traditional Republican values in the US (devolved authority, restraint of federal overreach, etc.). Despite the establishment Republican party going off the rails and even signing their souls over to the globalist neo-cons in many cases, there are still a large number of everyday people who know their history well enough to still support those founding principles. And these are actually principles of classical liberalism, from the Enlightenment.

[Rocky_Shorz]

Don't put division in your title. Ever it is an insult to everyone not standing in your shoes...


Our enemies aren't each other, bastard RIGHTIST BBC broadcast bldg 7 had come down 20 minutes before it did for Bush and Cheney...

Know your enemies, respect your friends

You could have the same discussion without the insult in your title.

I have always been on the right side, the other is the wrong side.

I'm on the changes side, which is the right party. Everything is perfect don't change a thing is the bastard lefties...

The Right thing to do is feed starving children.
The Right thing to do is not to throw families out of their home when parents can't find jobs
The right thing to do for an $800 Trillion dollar nation, is cover all citizens with health care.

So don't insult me calling me a leftist, my beliefs are as right as they come...

[Bruno]

Left right, left right.

As many have already pointed out notions of left and right vary greatly depending on the part of the world you live in.

As a Canadian I tend to label myself as being on the left because I believe in what I would describe as collectivist ideas. Some Americans I realize would see my beliefs as Socialist or even Marxist. This makes me laugh however as I do believe in individual rights and freedoms, property ownership and most capitalist ideals. I don't want big government and a lot of legislation, who does? However, trickle down economics doesn't seem to adhere to conventional forms of gravity, because I don't see it trickling down. Unfortunately most people who are wealthy only want to be more wealthy. Yes, many people have worked very hard for their wealth, but countless people work hard and are not wealthy.

I think the government should through taxation ensure that all people have fair and equal access to water, food, shelter, healthcare and education. If we still want to pretend in the west that everyone has the same opportunities it's the least we can do. Given the trillions of dollars that are spent on wars annually (financed by "right wing" and "left wing" governments across the planet) we certainly have the money to do all of these things if people truly wanted it to happen.

If it's wrong to be on the left or believe in wealth redistribution or free health care or free education, than I will happily die "wrong" but be at peace with my soul.

[turiya]

Its not only where you live but what individuals - a group of individuals - believe in... as it should be understood, by this time, that often times belief trumps truth...

I mean, its fine to say that left right, right left... it very well may not matter to you, personally. But if you are looking at the masses of people and what they 'believe'... then it certainly does matter. Propaganda serves its purpose when it affects what the masses of people will think, believe & act on...

Nice idea... to think, believe, what government should do... but there really is no such thing as 'government' - it really doesn't exist.

The only thing that is real are the individuals that make up what is thought of as a 'government'. The people are real. And they individually think makes up the collective... creates the status quo mindset. Certainly, right & left have their extremes... when either extreme becomes status quo, then it needs to be brought back to center through an opposing force... an opposing ideology.

We humans have been given a gift of physical life... one has a choice in living that life... one can choose to live a horizontal life as a cow... a water buffalo... a goat... Animals walk on all four of their legs & feet... The farmer will move the herd to water, to the feeding trough... call on a vet when the cow gets sick... and then take the cow to the barn for milk to be extracted from... the tax is extracted... the cow learns (education) & comes to know what a 'cattle prod' means...

That's how government works. This would be what I would call: living a 'horizontal' life... walking on four legs, moving from birth to death as any animal does... Not much to think about. Just do what you've been conditioned, trained, educated to do... a good conformist will have a peaceful life & happily die when its time... ignorance is bliss.

Animals receive their instincts from mother nature... mother nature informs animals what is to be done in various situation while living their lives... For example, mother nature tells the bird what needs to be done in order to make a nest for the laying of its eggs...

The other choice is to live a life on a vertical plane... Human beings are different than animals. They generally do not get their instincts from mother nature. Unlike animals, human beings walk on their two feet. And there is a good reason for it... Standing erect makes it so the fine nervous system is developed that make up the brain matter. Because of these fine nervous system network, intelligence manifests...

In order to survive on this Earth, human beings have the capacity to reason & make intelligent choices. Living vertically one can make very intelligent choices. Living horizontally, poorer choices will be made. And more than likely, allowing others to make your choices for you. Government, the people of government, like to prod the people by telling them what they need to do.

I prefer to make my own choices over the use of a cattle prod.


Daily News Segment - CTM #711- With John B Wells
(Published on Mar 23, 2017)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skV2_Oy0yCc

[awakeningmom]

Left right, left right.

As many have already pointed out notions of left and right vary greatly depending on the part of the world you live in.

As a Canadian I tend to label myself as being on the left because I believe in what I would describe as collectivist ideas. Some Americans I realize would see my beliefs as Socialist or even Marxist. This makes me laugh however as I do believe in individual rights and freedoms, property ownership and most capitalist ideals. I don't want big government and a lot of legislation, who does? However, trickle down economics doesn't seem to adhere to conventional forms of gravity, because I don't see it trickling down. Unfortunately most people who are wealthy only want to be more wealthy. Yes, many people have worked very hard for their wealth, but countless people work hard and are not wealthy.

I think the government should through taxation ensure that all people have fair and equal access to water, food, shelter, healthcare and education. If we still want to pretend in the west that everyone has the same opportunities it's the least we can do. Given the trillions of dollars that are spent on wars annually (financed by "right wing" and "left wing" governments across the planet) we certainly have the money to do all of these things if people truly wanted it to happen.

If it's wrong to be on the left or believe in wealth redistribution or free health care or free education, than I will happily die "wrong" but be at peace with my soul.

I found this website that appears to be geared towards 'educating' American students about what the labels "liberal" and "conservative" generally mean here.

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

I wonder how many of us agree with this assessment of each side's position on various issues and/or would cross the aisle (so to speak) on many of these positions -- I know I would. I too have always believed there should be a governmental safety net of some sort for those in need, and absolutely still believe that all people are entitled to clean food, clean water, safe and clean shelter, healthcare, and education. But since waking up to 9-11, I also don't trust the U.S. government anymore, so I no longer have the classic 'liberal' ideology (as defined by this student aimed website).

But I have always thought of Republicans as greedy white men who want to increase military spending, cut social programs for the needy, impose their own (often feigned) Christian beliefs on the rest of the world, and keep government out of everything except when it comes to a woman's right to control her own body. But funny how awakening to the larger agenda messes with one's former beliefs and makes one realize how we've been purposely divided and propagandized on both sides.

[sheme]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/what-shocks-me-about-the-bbc-occasionally-it-isnt-biased/ Well written piece in my favorite journal.

[norman]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/what-shocks-me-about-the-bbc-occasionally-it-isnt-biased/ Well written piece in my favorite journal.

That was a good read for a guy who hates long reads. Only stating the obvious but doing it so poetically.

On bias in the media, especially the Beeb. As a general rule of thumb, if they do a feature presenting two sides to an issue, the side they present first is the side they want to bury under the side they follow it up with.

So, it usually goes like this. Announce the issue with a mildly provocative and attention grabbing intro. Then present the side of the story the attention grabbing intro announces. Then move on to the counter view point, and eventually put the whole thing to bed and kiss the babies good night ;)

[norman]

Galloway gets his left and right mixed up quite often but otherwise he punches back at the Beeb pretty well:

QWRrtQhnFR0

[sheme]

Talk about weird just another strange coincidence BBC do seem to bring the worst out in beings .... Sonic signals can upset/hurt dogs. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/29/man-mauled-to-death-by-dog-during-interview-bbc-film-crew-staffordshire-bull-terrier
Sympathy to the victims family.