Dutroux Cover-up Protected Pedophile Networks

[melatonin]

I havent seen a topic on the Jimmy Saville pedo ring, that seems to be getting un-earthed here in England.
Being a survivor and a member of a few online communities who are talking about it, i think most people believe they are sacraficing a few of the "lower down" scum, as a way of saving their own asses.

I couldnt believe that situation on the "This morning" show, where the presenter handed over names to the Prime Minister live on air.
Also, there was that chap that made a false allegation - i cant think these events were delibrate to try and discredit survivors who are coming forward and giving evidence.

Also, (Not sure if anyone saw this) - the "Daily Mail" paper did an article that quoted Peter Sutcliffe (!!!!) as saying that he didnt believe that there would be that many victims - YES THEY BELIEVE THE WORDS OF A PHYSCOPATH ARE RELEVANT!

Unreal. And some people are still blind to the media's part in this.

Edit - Changed 1 word.

 

[Joe]

I havent seen a topic on the Jimmy Saville pedo ring, that seems to be getting un-earthed here in England.
Being a survivor and a member of a few online communities who are talking about it, i think most people believe they are sacraficing a few of the "lower down" scum, as a way of saving their own asses.

I couldnt believe that situation on the "This morning" show, where the presenter handed over names to the Prime Minister live on air.
Also, there was that chap that made a false allegation - i cant think these events were delibrate to try and discredit survivors who are coming forward and giving evidence.

Also, (Not sure if anyone saw this) - the "Daily Mail" paper did an article that quoted Peter Sutcliffe (!!!!) as saying that he didnt believe that there would be that many victims - YES THEY BELIEVE THE WORDS OF A PHYSCOPATH ARE RELEVANT!

Unreal. And some people are still blind to the media's part in this.

Edit - Changed 1 word.

I started taking a look into the situation here

The BBC: Protecting Pedophiles and War Criminals Since 2004

 

[Gwenllian]

In a video that Zoya posted on SOTT the Israeli historian tells us that we should change our dictionary. For instance he mentions the word conflict and how wrong a word that is for the situation in Palestine/Israel.

I was thinking the same thing about words like child abuse and pedophiles. Wouldn't it be better to call a spade a spade? Instead of abuse talk about the actual crime that was committed, i.e. assault, rape, torture and so on? Also, when we talk about pedophiles shouldn't we call them what they really are?: child rapists, murderers and torturers.

FWIW, in 'Thou shall not be aware' by Alice Miller she mentions Philip Ariès who wrote 'Centuries of Childhood'. I thought it was important because it shows us what happened during that time in (royal) families and what is still happening now, but much more disguised.

Louis XIII was not yet one year old:"He laughed uproariously when his nanny waggled his cock with her fingers." An amusing trick which the child soon copied. Calling a page, "he shouted 'Hey, there!' and pulled up his robe, showing him his cock."
He was one year old: "In high spirits," notes Heroard [the physician at the French court and who describes it all in his memoirs, upon which Ariès draws] he made everybody kiss his cock." This amused them all.
...
These jokes were not limited to the servants, or to brainless youths, or to women of easy virtue such as the King's mistress. The Queen, his mother, made the same sort of joke: "The Queen, touching his cock, said: "Son, I am holding your spout.'"

And there is much more, but I am sure you get the idea.

Ariès states:

There is no reason to believe that the moral climate was any different in other families, whether of nobles or commoners; the practice of associating children with the sexual ribaldris of adults formed part of contemporary manners.

I couldn't help thinking of this when I read that Prince Laurent joined these orchies of child rapists, but didn't participate and masturbated instead. Or then Prince Albert who flung himself onto a 16 year old girl.
It must be easier for royals to hide their depravity behind closed doors, I would think. And most likely it has continued for centuries?

I am going to dig up some information on Eileen Fairweather, who was a journalist of The Evening Standard and who exposed a ring connected to a children's home in England.

 

[melatonin]

I havent seen a topic on the Jimmy Saville pedo ring, that seems to be getting un-earthed here in England.
Being a survivor and a member of a few online communities who are talking about it, i think most people believe they are sacraficing a few of the "lower down" scum, as a way of saving their own asses.

I couldnt believe that situation on the "This morning" show, where the presenter handed over names to the Prime Minister live on air.
Also, there was that chap that made a false allegation - i cant think these events were delibrate to try and discredit survivors who are coming forward and giving evidence.

Also, (Not sure if anyone saw this) - the "Daily Mail" paper did an article that quoted Peter Sutcliffe (!!!!) as saying that he didnt believe that there would be that many victims - YES THEY BELIEVE THE WORDS OF A PHYSCOPATH ARE RELEVANT!

Unreal. And some people are still blind to the media's part in this.

Edit - Changed 1 word.

I started taking a look into the situation here

The BBC: Protecting Pedophiles and War Criminals Since 2004

Thanks Perceval, ive posted it on all the Survivor forums im on.
Its getting shared aswell.

 

[Shinzenbi]

Very bad news… it seems that the elite pedophile network is behind the French law called “marriage for all” legalizing gay marriage and children adoption by gay couples.

When considering this law, population growth (death?) control is obviously at stake, but beyond that are 2 things : the destruction of a pillar of our civilization, and satanism.

A structural cell of the french/western societies is the heterosexual monogamous family. Gay marriage is an attack against it. Gay people do not seem to care about getting married and are not numerous enough to constitute an electoral basis (number estimated at around 3% in France in 2011). So one can wonder “French people are massively against it, gay people do not request such a law, it is not a vote-catching measure… who is behind it?” I’m afraid the answer is the elite pedophile network. It is well known that gay marriage paves the way to children adoption by gay couples like in Brazil… And the French law “marriage for all” enables gay couples to adopt children under the same conditions as the heterosexual ones.

One may think that it is better for a child to be adopted by 2 “fathers” or 2 “mothers” than dying in the streets of a third-world city. This sounds good, but in France it is almost impossible for the married heterosexual couples to adopt a child. The criteria are very strict. There is a waiting list of 7 years, people of the social services come to your home, there is a limit age (40), and the candidate couples have 10 interviews with psychologists. Then why the hell would children adoption right be extended to gay couples ? It is the right for homosexuals to buy children from poor countries. When I say “buy children”, an example is Johnny Hallyday who has adopted/bought 2 children from Vietnam while he normally could not have according to the French criteria; he’s too old. It means there are preferential treatments or privileges for those who can afford them or bypass the law. Then who will benefit from the same privilege or can bypass the law ? Elite pedophile networks such as the one denounced by Stan Maillaud and Marcel Vervloesem in the Netherlands. Will there be even more snuff movies because of this law ?

This is my analysis of this law. Please correct me if I’m wrong, and I hope I am.

 

[anart]

Very bad news… it seems that the elite pedophile network is behind the French law called “marriage for all” legalizing gay marriage and children adoption by gay couples.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are NOT the same thing. Homosexuals are attracted to people of their same gender - pedophiles are attracted to children. There is a monumental difference.

When considering this law, population growth (death?) control is obviously at stake, but beyond that are 2 things : the destruction of a pillar of our civilization, and satanism.

What pillar of our civilization are you talking about? Marriage? In a society where people can get married on a reality tv show or a vegas casino and get it annulled the next day?

A structural cell of the french/western societies is the heterosexual monogamous family.

That hasn't been true for a very long time, if it ever was, considering the fact that women were often treated like chattel.

Gay marriage is an attack against it.

No, television shows where people get married to strangers might be.

Gay people do not seem to care about getting married and are not numerous enough to constitute an electoral basis (number estimated at around 3% in France in 2011).

First off, yes, they do care since being legally married means getting tax status breaks, health care, spousal support and access to medical decisions if the spouse is sick, or to even actually get into the hospital room to visit if the spouse is critically ill (which same sex couples currently have no right to do, since they are not "legally" family). Please get educated on this topic if you are going to talk about it.

Also, on average, ten to fifteen percent of the population self-identifies as gay, so your 3% figure is nonsense.

So one can wonder “French people are massively against it, gay people do not request such a law, it is not a vote-catching measure… who is behind it?”

None of that is true.

I’m afraid the answer is the elite pedophile network.

That is horse hockey.

It is well known that gay marriage paves the way to children adoption by gay couples like in Brazil… And the French law “marriage for all” enables gay couples to adopt children under the same conditions as the heterosexual ones.

What is wrong with gay couples raising children if those children need homes? Nothing - children raised in gay households do very, very well across the board and certainly better than children raised by parents who don't want them or are incapable of caring for them. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.

One may think that it is better for a child to be adopted by 2 “fathers” or 2 “mothers” than dying in the streets of a third-world city. This sounds good, but in France it is almost impossible for the married heterosexual couples to adopt a child. The criteria are very strict. There is a waiting list of 7 years, people of the social services come to your home, there is a limit age (40), and the candidate couples have 10 interviews with psychologists. Then why the hell would children adoption right be extended to gay couples ? It is the right for homosexuals to buy children from poor countries. When I say “buy children”, an example is Johnny Hallyday who has adopted/bought 2 children from Vietnam while he normally could not have according to the French criteria; he’s too old. It means there are preferential treatments or privileges for those who can afford them or bypass the law. Then who will benefit from the same privilege or can bypass the law ?

The above is all nonsense. There is no limit (unfortunately) to children who need loving homes. Your bias is showing and it's ridiculous.

Elite pedophile networks such as the one denounced by Stan Maillaud and Marcel Vervloesem in the Netherlands. Will there be even more snuff movies because of this law ?

Again - pedophilia has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Please stop conflating the two and take your homophobia elsewhere.

This is my analysis of this law. Please correct me if I’m wrong, and I hope I am.

You are very wrong, but not for the reasons you think. You are wrong because you are ignorant about homosexuality, homosexuals and homosexual parents. Please get educated.

The gay marriage issue is a real issue, however it is also being used by the 'powers that be' to divide the populace and your ignorance is exactly how they use it to divide. If people like you realized and understood that there is zero difference between you and homosexuals, there would be no divisive issues. Pedophiles are entirely different and not at all human. Homosexuals are and your ignorance is not only astounding, it is insulting.

 

[dugdeep]

Please take your bigotry elsewhere.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Shinzenbi]

Very bad news… it seems that the elite pedophile network is behind the French law called “marriage for all” legalizing gay marriage and children adoption by gay couples.

Homosexuals are and your ignorance is not only astounding, it is insulting.

Ouh la la… There is absolutely no offense intended to anyone in my previous post. If I’ve hurt anyone, I sincerely apologize. Really, really no insult is intended.

A structural cell of the french/western societies is the heterosexual monogamous family.

That hasn't been true for a very long time, if it ever was, considering the fact that women were often treated like chattel.

Unfortunately women were (and some are still) often treated like chattel. I do agree because they “belonged” to their husband and were rarely allowed to work until not so long ago. But did not that still form a heterosexual monogamous family? What was, if there has ever been, the structural cell of the western societies since the middle-age?

Gay marriage is an attack against it.

No, television shows where people get married to strangers might be.

Ok sorry I had no idea, nor did I know that people can get married on a reality tv show or a vegas casino and get it annulled the next day.

Also, on average, ten to fifteen percent of the population self-identifies as gay, so your 3% figure is nonsense.

What is your source? Mine is Wikipedia, this page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualit%C3%A9
It states that « D'après un sondage de l'IFOP pour Têtu en 2011 (questions auto-administrées en ligne enquête portant sur 7 800 français de la population générale)7, il apparaît que 3 % des sondé-e-s se définissent comme homosexuel-le-s et 3,5 % comme bisexuel-le-s (mais toujours moins de femmes que d'hommes). »

It is well known that gay marriage paves the way to children adoption by gay couples like in Brazil… And the French law “marriage for all” enables gay couples to adopt children under the same conditions as the heterosexual ones.

What is wrong with gay couples raising children if those children need homes? Nothing - children raised in gay households do very, very well across the board and certainly better than children raised by parents who don't want them or are incapable of caring for them. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.

Where do you see bigotry or the insinuation that something is wrong with gay couples raising children ? And what kind of bigotry would there be ? That was a simple observation. There is no such things as “oh damn !!! God dammit !” in these sentences. Is my English that bad ? For the sake of education, would you mind telling me what makes you think this is bigotry? I would like it not to happen twice. Thanks.

Elite pedophile networks such as the one denounced by Stan Maillaud and Marcel Vervloesem in the Netherlands. Will there be even more snuff movies because of this law ?

Again - pedophilia has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Please stop conflating the two and take your homophobia elsewhere.

I’m not mixing both. I’m just trying to figure out who or what is behind this law. Instead of saying I’m homophobic (this looks like a free insult but no offense taken), if you have an idea, please expose it.

This is my analysis of this law. Please correct me if I’m wrong, and I hope I am.

You are very wrong, but not for the reasons you think. You are wrong because you are ignorant about homosexuality, homosexuals and homosexual parents. Please get educated.

Sure I am ignorant about homosexuality. Not being a homosexual, I cannot know what being homosexual is like and do not plan to get educated about it. I just have the testimonies of gay friends (only men) and internet research and that’s all I’m willing to have access to.

 

[RflctnOfU]

What is your source? Mine is Wikipedia, this page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualit%C3%A9
It states that « D'après un sondage de l'IFOP pour Têtu en 2011 (questions auto-administrées en ligne enquête portant sur 7 800 français de la population générale)7, il apparaît que 3 % des sondé-e-s se définissent comme homosexuel-le-s et 3,5 % comme bisexuel-le-s (mais toujours moins de femmes que d'hommes). »

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. It really can't be trusted as a source of information, especially on hot button topics like homosexuality.

Kris

 

[Palinurus]

Here is the direct link to the study mentioned. It's only six pages in pdf :

_http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/1546-1-study_file.pdf

 

[obyvatel]

It is well known that gay marriage paves the way to children adoption by gay couples like in Brazil… And the French law “marriage for all” enables gay couples to adopt children under the same conditions as the heterosexual ones.

What is wrong with gay couples raising children if those children need homes? Nothing - children raised in gay households do very, very well across the board and certainly better than children raised by parents who don't want them or are incapable of caring for them. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.

Where do you see bigotry or the insinuation that something is wrong with gay couples raising children ? And what kind of bigotry would there be ? That was a simple observation. There is no such things as “oh damn !!! God dammit !” in these sentences. Is my English that bad ? For the sake of education, would you mind telling me what makes you think this is bigotry? I would like it not to happen twice. Thanks.

Since you asked, your previous post in the topic where you insinuated that gay marriage would pave the way for pedophilia was most likely based on your negative bias towards homosexuals. If you read the Dutroux affair, it would be quite apparent that there is no ostensible link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Then why would you see such a link?

In this post you write
[quote author=shinzenbi]
Sure I am ignorant about homosexuality. Not being a homosexual, I cannot know what being homosexual is like and do not plan to get educated about it. I just have the testimonies of gay friends (only men) and internet research and that’s all I’m willing to have access to.
[/quote]

This indicates you are quite comfortable in your ignorance on this topic. Yet you perhaps wish to maintain the politically and socially correct public facade of appearing "fair and balanced" on such issues - hence you are reacting to the word "bigotry" that was used in this context. It is entirely up to you whether you want to divest yourself about your misconceptions on this topic.

 

[truth seeker]

Sure I am ignorant about homosexuality. Not being a homosexual, I cannot know what being homosexual is like and do not plan to get educated about it. I just have the testimonies of gay friends (only men) and internet research and that’s all I’m willing to have access to.

Why is that?

I'm finding it difficult to believe that you have spoken to gay people and have still managed to come away with some of the views you've posted. Unless they're possibly self hating?

So much of what you said seems to me to be programmed responses that are based in fear and do little more than cause separation. Why not require more of yourself and attempt to gain some understanding instead?

 

[mkrnhr]

Hello Shinzenbi,
I think there is a misunderstanding of what gays are and what pedophiles are. Gay people (men or women) are attracted to persons who happen to be of the same gender as they are. They are usually a man who likes a man or a woman who likes a woman. It has nothing to do with children. On the other hand, pedophiles are sexual predators who pray on children for whatever deviance they have.
One has to get to the basics and avoid amalgamation.
I had a neighbour who was condemned for pedophilia. He was married with children, not at all the prototype of a homosexual. And yet, people tend to associate homosexuality to pedophilia for some mysterious reason.

Some people argue that the actual debate about gay marriage and the right for adoption hides an effort to "legalize" pedophilia in someway. You might notice that pedophiles do not need the protection of the law to commit their crimes because most often they are above the law. As an example, pedophile networks in Belgium (in relation with Dutroux) and in France did not wait same-marriage legalization in order to exist. Pedophilia by priests in churches did not wait for those laws to exist.

I think the actual debate has more to do with diverting the attention from real economic and social programs and have only the effect of polarizing and dividing the society even more.

 

[Gwenllian]

I have just come across a quote from David McGowan's 'Programmed to Kill', which reminded me of what Joël van der Reijden wrote in his article about Regina Louf's pimp. That he somehow knew that Regina had a very strong tendency to dissociate. Joël was wondering how he knew, if I am not mistaken.

As was noted in an earlier chapter, almost all child prostitutes are borne of a lifetime of abuse. They work the streets either because the conditions in their own homes are so horrendous that the street life is actually preferable, or because a family member has forced them into prostitution. These are people who will - to an overwhelming degree - have a very strong tendency to dissociate, and who are, therefore, prime targets for mind control operations. Any good pimp has at least a general understanding of that fact. That is why the image of the abusive pimp maintaining control over his brazenly exploited flock is such a pervasive one.
...
Of course, most of them are not victims of the systematic and highly refined techniques practiced by the intelligence community, but they are mind control victims just the same.

 

[Shinzenbi]

First of all, i would like to say that I am surprised to see my post reappear. It had been deleted and has been republished. Thank you for your replies, we can go on discussing this topic. I mention this fact but am not especially requesting explanations.

Since you asked, your previous post in the topic where you insinuated that gay marriage would pave the way for pedophilia was most likely based on your negative bias towards homosexuals. If you read the Dutroux affair, it would be quite apparent that there is no ostensible link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Then why would you see such a link?

I’m not mixing both. My english level seems to be too low to express my ideas properly, sorry about it. I’m assuming that there is a link between the law legalizing children adoption by gay couples and pedophilia. I do not blame homosexuals for anything. Currently, there is a long waiting list (several years) and strict criteria for heterosexual couples willing to adopt children. Expanding this right will make the waiting list even longer (except for those who have privileges like Johnny Hallyday). It would be understandable if there were not enough couples eligible for children adoption. Then, who wishes to have access to children more easily? What small group? I’m asking the question. I do not think that the French government has the best interests of children at heart.

Sure I am ignorant about homosexuality. Not being a homosexual, I cannot know what being homosexual is like and do not plan to get educated about it. I just have the testimonies of gay friends (only men) and internet research and that’s all I’m willing to have access to.

Why is that?

I'm finding it difficult to believe that you have spoken to gay people and have still managed to come away with some of the views you've posted. Unless they're possibly self hating?

So much of what you said seems to me to be programmed responses that are based in fear and do little more than cause separation. Why not require more of yourself and attempt to gain some understanding instead?

Let’s say that my understanding of homosexuality is the one of a heterosexual, someone who can only look at the data from the outside. I do not think I can really understand something unless I do it. For instance, I cannot say that I know what being a fireman is like because I am not and have never worked as a fireman. In this case, I do not wish to have sex with another man to understand homosexuality, therefore my understanding is limited. This is all I meant. But I think you mean something else with "Why not require more of yourself and attempt to gain some understanding instead?". What do you mean?

Some people argue that the actual debate about gay marriage and the right for adoption hides an effort to "legalize" pedophilia in someway. You might notice that pedophiles do not need the protection of the law to commit their crimes because most often they are above the law. As an example, pedophile networks in Belgium (in relation with Dutroux) and in France did not wait same-marriage legalization in order to exist. Pedophilia by priests in churches did not wait for those laws to exist.

Sure they do not need protection of the law to commit their crimes, but would they refuse it?

Here is the direct link to the study mentioned. It's only six pages in pdf :
_http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/1546-1-study_file.pdf

Palinurus, many thanks.