Friday, 31 July 2015

The Satanic British Establishment

Just a brief comment - mainly for non-British readers - concerning the continual drip-drip media coverage of gross, systematic sexual abuse of children - mostly boys - among the British Establishment going back to the middle nineteen sixties.

The basic theme emerging over the past several years and continuing, is that Sir Jimmy Savile was not unique, but simply the most extreme example of a widespread practice - and indeed the fact of Savile surviving and thriving for decades intrinsically entailed exactly that he was merely representative of a much wider culture.

This involves senior politicians and government officials, as well as people in the media and entertainment and enforcement agencies - and indeed the picture painted is one of large scale, organized, multi-centred, strategic paedophilic abuses and toleration/ reward of abusers among hundreds of men and women (e.g. Margaret Thatcher and The Queen - both personal friends of Savile, and patrons and promoters of other abusive figures named in the media) in positions of decisive power and influence. Not one single massive conspiracy, but a significant number of large local set-ups - each protected by different modes of what might be termed Establishment Privilege

The scale of the activities is, frankly, astonishing. At the very least, considering that paedophilia is regarded by the average Briton as just about the worst of all crimes, this represents a remarkably 'tolerant' and socially-dissonant subculture among the ruling Establishment (including and involving the pinnacle of the Establishment, the most prestigious and powerful figures), since it is clear that 'everybody' (who was anybody) knew (or had heard of) what was going-on - but nothing ever was done about it. Indeed, many of the alleged abusers were rewarded with status, fame, power and money - all the rewards that the Establishment could confer.

Given the dishonesty of the mass media, and the fact that the evidence comes only from the mass media - is all this true? Did all these Establishment figure really engage in such grossly immoral (and criminal) activities, and were they really protected from exposure and prosecution?

Certainly, I have zero experience of this kind of activity in my own circles, not even the rumours of such activities. But then, I am not, nor ever have been, in this elite. If it is true, then it must have been confined to a secret and ruling elite subculture. Furthermore, the exploited children were mostly drawn from the chaotic subcultures of children's homes, runaways, the wild children, the borderline mentally handicapped, mentally ill, drug users, prostitutes, trafficked, uncared-for and so on - and again I have very little knowledge or contact with such groups.

On these grounds it is possible to deny that their was any such problem, and that the whole thing is a media invention - or at least a wild exaggeration based on just a handful of genuine cases. The question is why are such things being exposed now by the mass media and the police? It looks like some kind of inter-Establishment war, a war of evil versus evil, but this is not something I understand.

On the other hand, the current media coverage is piecemeal, presented as a series of isolated 'scandals', and does not draw general conclusions as I am doing.

Unfortunately, I have come to believe that it is true; and that there really was, probably still is, a monstrously wicked cult of child sexual abuse among the Establishment, which thrived in an environment of mutual protection of privilege. And since I think this is true, then it casts an horrific retrospective light on the British Establishment of the past half century.

This stuff is so grossly abhorrent, that comparisons with Caligula and Nero spring to mind; and in general the sense is one of Satanic influence among a group that have lost their religious faith and embraced a socio-political ideal of sexual revolution - in which one barrier after another to sexual gratification has been dismantled.

Indeed, this seems to explain the Establishment push behind the sexual revolution - the tolerance, indifference and approval of sexual adventuring and experimenting - and the fact that so many people were so easily blackmailable by the Establishment to keep quiet; with an all-seeing surveillance state and manipulable laws, backed by the irresponsible and irresistible destructive power of the mass media.

At any rate, while I do not seek to persuade others of the validity of this analysis, my working assumption is now that the British Establishment of the past couple of generations was far, far worse than anything its erstwhile (mostly Leftist) detractors ever alleged of it - its moral authority is utterly exploded, there has been a failure to recognize and enforce even the most basic level of human decency.

To a lesser or greater extent; this taints all of those who are a part of that Establishment, and who have been rewarded by the Establishment - especially the 'Honours' System of medals, knighthoods, life peerages and the like. These self-styled honours are coming to seem like badges of complicity.

I cannot allow much in the way of 'good intentions' from such people - rather, it fits with a policy of deliberate, strategic subversion of public morality, especially sexual morality. And this policy has been extremely successful - the depraved Establishment have substantially succeeded in eroding the basic decency, the traditional virtues, of the British public.

A topic worthy of George Orwell and one which Orwell would instantly have recognized; and lacking an Orwell, a story of the British people that perhaps never will be told.


  1. that so many people were so easily blackmailable

    I have sometimes wondered if this (obviously among many other factors) has contributed to the speed of decline; if it helps explain why there hasn't been stiffer opposition. Is just about everyone (of a certain level) blackmail-able? Is it so hard to find a man with an innocent past?

  2. The sociopath has an advantage over his innocent colleagues. His innocent colleagues can hardly imagine the inner workings of his mind and have trouble believing the associated horrors are being perpetrated. And so they continue until the scandal becomes too great to ignore. Even then, the tendency is to believe that this can only be an isolated case, not a symptom of a wider plague.

  3. Why the 60's? It seems the culminating point for a lot of the present-day evil. It seems unlikely that everyone had a sudden instant change of heart for the worst, so this must have been developing at least since the end of WW2 (if not before).

  4. "If the God of life does not respond to this culture of death with judgment, God is not God. If God does not honor the blood of the hundreds of millions of innocent victims then the God of the Bible, the God of Israel, the God of orphans and widows, the Defender of the defenseless, is a man-made myth, a fairy tale."

  5. @Tucker - There are several factors. Probably most people have done something rendering them blackmailable by conventional standards, but even if they have done nothing especially bad the power of the modern mass media can make a trivial, or even false, accusation into something that seems horrible. On top of this, the surveillance of personal electronic media in Britain has been near complete, so far as I can tell from media reports, and so anyone who is made a target can have something dredged-up against them much more quickly and easily than ever before.

    @Leo - I think that is right, that is how it works.

    @Nathaniel - If you read my book from 2011 entitled Though Prison, you see that I think this can be traced back to the Great Schism around 1000 AD! But things changed very gradually for centuries, accelerated at the Industrial Revolution - and the problem clearly reached the tipping point in the middle 60s - that was when these trends became dominant.

  6. This goes back to at least the 19th century. It's not that the Establishment approved, particularly, but it seems to have had the attitude that as long as people were discreet about any strange sexual proclivities they may have, eyes would be averted and no questions would be asked. Some people took this as a carte blanche. The Bloomsbury Set and some of the Fabians were particularly enthusiastic in taking advantage of this. John Maynard Keynes and Lytton Strachey were keen on young boys, and apart from seducing schoolboys, used to go on holidays around the Mediterranean where, in such places as Morocco, male sex slaves as young as seven could be bought.

  7. I'm not so sure paedophilia is considered so heinous anymore, actually. We also have the recent Rotherham horror, which seems to have passed mostly unnoticed. As I recall, Labour won the election there, even though they knew and did nothing. And the rest of the grooming rings that turn up in the papers with some regularity. Some barking, not much biting.

  8. You write:

    "A topic worthy of George Orwell and one which Orwell would instantly have recognized; and lacking an Orwell, a story of the British people that perhaps never will be told."

    T.S. Eliot foresaw the world ending "Not with a bang but a whimper." But if the end is never adequately chronicled can we say it made a noise at all? (If a tree falls in the forest…) Could it be that the period from, say, 1945 until the seemingly inevitable dissolution of the West as we have known it will appear something like a blank spot on a tape recording. Presumably something happened. We have reports, anecdotes. But nothing comprehensive, nothing dispositive and so these last hours will evaporate from human memory.

    Ironically, the West is more heavily surveilled than any society that ever existed. All the evidence is there. Yet without culture or understanding or morality – without Truth – it is all weirdly meaningless, context-less and, therefore, without substance, value or reality.

  9. @Albrecht - Yes, true enough in terms of mortal life - but in an eternal and divine context, everyone will know.

  10. Yes. The way in which actual conspiracies are tied together by 'dark sacraments' is under-explored, for the same reason that one doesn't like to re-read Philip K. Dick novels. It's too unsettling.

  11. Bruce,

    I just saw a news article on the BBC online about scandalous accusations regarding Edward Heath. Did you know this before the story broke on the BBC or are you just ahead of the news by virtue of your admirable powers of perception?

  12. @Leo - No I didn't know about it. I did know that Heath was supposed or claimed to have been a homosexual, although this was not mentioned until late in his life. He was a strange, emotionally shallow, gauche, unconvincing kind of man, whose relentless advocacy of the European Economic Community/ EU struck me as evidence of corruption. Of course, the mass media are very unreliable on the specifics of these matters and the exact nature and severity of alleged wrong-doing- but I have the feeling that they are reluctant to cover these stories in case people join the dots. In my experience, these kind of rumours about very famous people have usually, in the past, eventually turned out to be accurate.

  13. @AS - Thanks for your comment - I need to check out websites before posting a comment with links.

  14. I agree with Nathaniel that this goes back much further than the 60s. Homosexual abuse amongst public school boys is hinted at by C.S.Lewis, and I can't help wondering if there is a connection with the Cambridge Five.

    I share your distrust of the media, and remember the moral panic (which proved baseless) over (literally) Satanic child abuse in the United States in the 1980s. McMartin preschool, etc. But it would be fallacious reasoning to conclude that, because a scandal over child abuse proved baseless in one time and place, it is baseless everywhere. We now know that pedophiles were exploiting both the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of American some decades back.