My big essay on child pedophilia/Henry Makow essay

I am posting this with a caveat.

Some people mentioned have indeed been called into question in Canadian society for the TYPE of whistle blowing that they do. I have myself met one of them and don't hold his morality in his esteem. Kevin Annett is NOT held in high esteem by some of us women who have come into contact with him, and I have gone to the Truth Commission to tell them what happened to me when I contacted him and what happened when I met him. That jerk didn't even sell me the book!

Canada is a moral hypocrite. My story studied in any detail will tell you that. Whether my story and my son's will EVER have a happy ending is .. um .. doubtful. Now they are trying to call me schizophrenic and slap me in the hospital. The psychiatrist, who WAS moral, that we had for years is retired. The only thing standing between me and captivity at this hour is my GP, who knows the whole tale. What she can do about is .. NOTHING.

I have been fighting against government sexual abuse of young people for over TWO DECADES. I get no support and it's no damned fun. In fact, it's amazing I haven't offed myself in frustration. I met victims first in the UK, met more in the US and plenty here. The people who work in "the industry" are the worst of all.

I am convinced that until we break the hold of The Patriarchy now of this is going to CHANGE. I've resigned myself (more or less) to crone hood, and even my so-called friends who work in the social services, two of whom I helped get their jobs, are completely morally bankrupt and yet have total POWER over their clients. I asked them both to go see Kevin Annett and watch the film and BOTH refused although they work with the native community.

Bashing away at those with the power does no good. We must build real COMMUNITY, which is nearly impossible as survivors have few to no communications skills. Even the 12-step network doesn't have a fellowship for violence victims! They can't keep it together to build a fellowship. They must be brought together in other ways. Sad to say, in AA discussion of sexual abuse is STILL TABOO.

I could run a University course on what I have seen and lived, but that will never be. I can only hope that this blog retains my records of what I have figured out and for that I must rely on GOD - the only clear course that I can see at all. I wrote an entire book on my experience, my strength and my hopes . and of course, it was illegally thrown away and the perpetrated NEVER BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. So now I just blog instead. But one day, God willing my real first hand story will be told, maybe not until I am dead and gone, but hopefully one day.

Not one person who has perpetrated injustice on me or my son has even done a single day in jail. And those who could have helped us build a better life refused to do so. One name in particular still sticks in my craw.

I cry extensively every blessed day - and I get no responsible medical care despite a mandate that they do so. I am almost the Perfect Survivor, only my suicide attempt a few weeks ago has really laid me low.

IMHO, people just do not, do NOT give a shit at all.

I COULD I suppose write a magazine article-length reply to what is posted here - from my WOMAN's point of view.

One comment that comes to mind is that research shows that judges and doctors are the mostly likely to be "sex-addicted". They have no moral compass except when it comes to OTHERS.

Another is that the plan for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are just FULL OF SLEEZE. I'd like to go there and protest but I probably will be too sick and broke to get there.

Another comment is this: I call and call those lawyers who represented me in my refugee case. All refuse to call me back and help, even though they made thousands of dollars representing us. Feels REAL BAD. If you read this, you have no idea.

If you think Henry Makow or these are interested in helping me expose my story and helping us out, GUESS AGAIN. Sure would prove interesting though.

Virginia

Pedophile Illuminati: Police State Pederasts...all over this world.

From RENSE.com:


When Pedophile Judges Fear Exposure

By Henry Makow PhD

5-7-8

Under a thin veneer of Law, we are governed by a secret network of traitors, pedophiles, Satanists and criminals, masquerading as prominent lawyers and judges, politicians, businessmen and police chiefs.

They are often Freemasons who derive their power from the central banking cartel based in London which controls the mass media and seeks to impose its tyranny in the guise of "world government."

If you don't believe me, you've probably never heard the names Renate Andres-Auger, Jack Cram and Bruce Clark. They are Vancouver lawyers who were dragged from the courtroom, drugged, disbarred and committed to mental hospitals when they attempted to expose this clique in the 1990's.

CITY CONFIDENTIAL

Beautiful Vancouver B.C., site of the 2010 Winter Olympics, was described by the "Christian Science Monitor" in 1997 as "a pedophiles' paradise," a place known for its "notorious sex trade," with an international reputation "as a city where it is easy to find a child for sex." In 1999, UNESCO named Vancouver one of the world's top three centers for sex trafficking, child porn and pedophilia because of "suspected judicial protection for child sex offenders."

In 1994, Renate Andres-Auger, an aboriginal lawyer and single mother of six girls, found irregularities in a land claim case that were very damning to the judicial process. She also charged certain judges and lawyers with a criminal conspiracy to aid and protect pedophiles. She and her own lawyer Jack Cram presented evidence, including photographs and eye witness accounts that two Supreme Court judges were engaged in pedophilia and were using their office to protect other pedophiles. She named the prestigious "Vancouver Club" as a center of this pedophile ring. (Kevin Annett, "Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust," p. 147-150)

The Judge ordered Auger removed from the court. "The sheriffs dragged Andres-Auger out of the court and you could hear her thumping down the stairs behind the judge's bench." Then the Judge ordered the sheriffs to remove her lawyer Jack Cram. Police were called to clear the courtroom of about 80 supporters. According to a press release (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/cram.html), this is what happened when Cram took the cause to the public:

"One night at about 11:30 p.m., after finishing a radio interview, Mr. Cram returned home, parked his car, and while walking to his apartment building five policemen emerged out of the bushes and leaped on him. He was put in an unmarked van and as soon as they got him in they "shot him full of something" and he was transported to the psychiatric ward of Vancouver General Hospital -- as a "no information" patient.

SAVING JACK CRAM

"When the committee found out where Mr. Cram was, they had to go to Prince George, some 800 kms away, to find a lawyer who would file a habeas-corpus writ to release Mr. Cram but it was never used as Mr. Cram was again, unexpectedly, released after being held this time for 7 days.

"Mr. Cram went directly from the psychiatric ward to a meeting of the committee ... He was still under the effects of the drugs that had been administered to him up until about two hours prior to his release. But he was able to explain everything that had happened. It was two of his closest associates, one of which was the one who had bad mouthed him on TV, that signed papers to have Mr. Cram committed.


"After a trial, the court disbarred him for a year and fined him $10,000. He was bankrupt and had lost his practice. Cram moved to his ranch in Princeton, a community about 130 km north of Vancouver.


"According to Judge Gibbs, in making his recent judgment on Dr. Clark's appeal, said "after [Mr. Cram] received treatment for his paranoid-delusions mental illness, he subsequently dropped all his court cases that he had started in his delusional phase" and one of the conditions for returning to the bar after one year was that he continue to receive psychiatric treatment for that year. Mr. Cram could have been jailed for three months if he didn't receive the treatment or defaulted on paying the fine."

Renate Andres-Auger has gone underground. Law Society of BC official James Taylor, who disbarred Andres-Auger and Cram, became a BC Supreme Court judge and issued an injunction in 2002 against mentioning the pedophile charges.

Ed John, a native leader accused of using Mafia tactics, and running cocaine and child prostitution rings, was actually named Minister of Child and Family Services in the NDP (socialist) provincial government in 2000. The injunction also covered any mention of these charges.

COMMENTS ON THIS SHAMEFUL EPISODE

Deborah Wade, a founder of Amnesty International in Vancouver, said in 1999 (http://www.preferrednetwork.com/Pedophilia_In_Vancouver.htm):

"The Cram/Andres-Auger story, to this day, remains a very strange and fearful tale of alleged corruption and pedophilia in high places. It is also a story which has never yet been completely told. Perhaps if it were, along with a few other strange stories, we as Canadians would have little reason to gasp at the exposure of pedophile rings in Belgium operating in high places two years ago. The matter of cover-ups possibly existing for those in high places in Canada is becoming more and more credible as more and more people speak out."

In 2007 Anthony Hall, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, commented in "Canadian Dimension" magazine:

"No public investigation into the treatment and accusations of Andres-Auger and Cram ever took place. We can only speculate, therefore, on the circumstances behind such a dramatic collapse of dignity and due process in the criminal-justice system. Certainly it is made to seem probable that some highly placed group or individual believed that he, she, or they had a great deal to lose if Andres-Auger and Cram had been able to press charges."

Hall relates how in 1995, when lawyer Bruce Clark (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/currvit.html)tried to make a legal argument on behalf of Aboriginal clients, an incident transpired in a rural B.C. court similar to when Andres-Auger and Cram tried to bring their evidence forward. Clark was taken into custody and sent to an institution for a compulsory psychological examination.

This is how dissidents were treated in another Illuminati satrap, the USSR. Granted these events took place 13-14 years ago, but you can bet they created a chill that continues today.

CONCLUSION

The Illuminati has a vital interest in using Native leadership to confiscate Aboriginal land and water, and to operate drug trafficking and pedophile rings. That's why lawyers who attempted to represent ordinary Natives incurred the wrath of these (moral) reptiles. That's when the mask slipped, and we had a glimpse of the ugly reality of our society.

Another man to watch is Kevin Annett (http:// www.hiddenfromhistory.org), a United Church (Methodist-Presbyterian) minister who was kicked out of the church for investigating systemic murder of Native children in church-run residential schools. He is leading a crusade to force the Canadian government and churches to acknowledge genocide. Canadians are outspoken about recognizing other nations' genocides.


"If genocide can happen to to Indian people today, it can happen to you tomorrow," Annett writes in his book, "Love and Death in the Valley." "Especially if you rely on the government and corporate system that has robbed them for so long."


The experience of Andres-Auger, Cram, Clark and Annett shows that when it comes to freedom, truth and justice, we live in an hypocritical and decadent society. Banker-Masonic control infects our society like a cancer paralyzing mind and spirit.

--------

See also "A Tale of Two Lawyers"

http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/Tale2lawyers.html

and my "Did Illuminati Exterminate Canadian Indian Children?"

http://www.henrymakow.com/did_the_illuminati_exterminate.html

---

Henry Makow Ph.D. is the author of "Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order." (www.cruelhoax.ca) His articles can be found at his web site www.henrymakow.com He enjoys receiving your comments, some of which he posts on his site using first names only. hmakow@gmail.com

Bill C-1 and the CONTROLLERS: commments by Matt Janovic

I am completely philosophiCalled out right now.

A thing is either creative (pro life) or it is NOT (death)

OR

it's all a process reflected in the four fingers - totality, birth, death, rebirth?

Today is Easter and it seems more highly LIKELY that it is the latter.

Yet I AM or I AM NOT.

Simple.

To make the 'dot' and make a mark is the CREATIVE answer if the Buddhists are right.

Either "on" or "off".

And then of course there is the Relationship between them.

This essay below, no matter how controversial, is definitely "on".

Always a process when we leave a mark, never merely an EVENT.

The breath goes in, the breath goes out and so it goes on forever.

Good stuff in (and it's all good) - and bad stuff out (toxic)

In

Out

In

Out

The reason I left the exopolitical people was that a "prime contactee" told me that in her "event" with THEM, they showed her that the earth was DIEING.

Me, I look at it and I see the blades of grass pushing up, all the time,

even if I am NOT there to observe ..

I made a decision that day ..

THEY can have their messiahs,

I'll stick with what comes my way ..

IN

OUT

IN

OUT

The nature of "good" and "evil" sometimes escapes me.

I do not presume TO KNOW.

I just like to hear the vibration that comes

when my breath creates words.

An "on" choice unless I say something incredibly stoopid and it

becomes toxic.

This seems to me a good way to live, just being the frog on the lily pad.

Now if I could ONLY get to somewhere were the air is better.

Someone else owns the air I breath, not me. They chose to leave it full of toxic elements.

And that is a pity ..

So, I take in more toxins on the "IN"

and have to push out more toxins that maybe others on the "OUT"

No one really owns anything, but I do not care to pitch a tent outside in the cold air

and

no one is inviting me into their room with a fireplace, either - not now.

The strengh of my breath can feed my imagination

and take me anywhere I wish to go.

IN

OUT

IN

OUT

It either "is" or it "is not".

I met a healer from Zimbabwe last year, he really suffered physically; he said it must be so for both of us, or we might "forget" the suffering

on this breathing planet.

Because we use our I AMness to care,

does that make us superior

OR

does just that show how we chose to leave our MARK

When he spoke, I could see the light of the Old Ones entering through the ceiling in the room.

He knew I could see it, too.

He had personally adopted many orphaned Zimbabwe children.

He had to keep them feed.

That was his CHOICE.

IN

OUT

It's either creative or it isn't.

That's the NATURE of duality.

I do not believe that Homolka should have been allowed to have a a child. She did. From time to time, I pray for the child, same as I do for the lives of all children.

They are either "on" or "off" like everything else.

Yet

Who am I to judge anyone at all? To create further dichotomies?

I had a pretty ass-miserable childhood, but it did not destroy my heart of gold. My own father killed my mother and left us all orphaned. Am I screwed up?

Either I AM or I AM NOT.

This attitude of mine frustrates many psychiatrists.

The prefer to punish my attitude.

The do not like the fact I understand CLASS distinctions.

They breath the same air as me; are they superior?

Is this their CHOICE?

The thing I DIS-covered was that despite having a heart of gold, one can STILL be unable to heal one's SELF, but that everything single thing you need is in the air.

That's why God put so much oxygen in the water.

Another fascinating element to contend with while we are "ON"

Every thing living is breathing. Some more rapidly than others; it is said in YOGA that we are each given our quota of breath before coming. Why would we judge that?
Because things can be numbered and counted, does not mean that that is the ONLY reality.

IN fact, that is the best argument against such stoopid thinking that ONLY the material is the answer.

Those who cannot accept change and process want to CONtrol.

CONtrol - To stop what is in motion by an act of WILL.

Yet to make that stick, they must

BREATH.

IN

OUT

You know it all, too.

Being a punisher is not a CHOICE I wish to make.

A distinct "waste" of "perfectly good" BREATH

as a Brit might put in an "on" moment.


Still, I do wish someone would give this defenders of The Patriarchy a damned good spanking.

I wish anglo-saxon types did not believe that children were

their property

I don't think the breath of life gives anyone

The right to abuse.

No one asks for it.

No one should allow a murderering mother
to have a child not under child protection.

Who's focus is right - mine or Stephen Harper's?

Just sayin

CoZmic Mommy

Canadian Tories Under Harper Attempting to Impose Film Censorship Through New Tax Credit Clause , by Matt Janovic

"It means the minister of heritage will have unprecedented powers. Public policy--what is that? It's anything she decides it is. ...The platform they're suggesting is akin to a Communist Chinese panel of unknown people, who, behind closed doors, will make a second ruling after bodies like Telefilm Canada have already invested.''--Canadian movie director, David Cronenberg.

Ottowa/Toronto--If Canadians thought they were going to escape the reach of the Bush era, they were reminded of the impossibility this week by Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper's proposed amemendment to Canadian tax credit policy. But did he and his party really author it? No, this is a collective move by both parties and outside elements. Are they the real instigators of this ill-advised legislation? What's the role of Hollywood in all of this?

A 13-word clause buried in a 560-page tax amendment is pitting Canada's film industry against Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The proposal would allow the Canadian government to deny tax breaks to films deemed contrary to "public policy,'' as determined by the Heritage Department, headed by [Harper appointee] Josee Verner. ("Censorship Charges Fly as Canada Moves to Cut Film Tax Credit," Bloomberg, 03.21.2008)

The Bloomberg headline is misleading, which is unsurprising. The Canadian tax credit isn't being cut at all, but films that are deemed to be "against public" policy could have problems crucial getting funding. Without the tax credit, it's unlikely that very many movies would be made in the North American nation by Canadians. Foreign productions--namely Hollywood ones--will be unaffected by this legislative change that's being urged-on by Harper's government and his party. This is what should be setting-off the alarms, and it appears that the Canadian film industry is well aware of the threat posed within these few lines being amended to the existing Telefilm bill. Unsurprisingly, this call for a filtering system in Telefilm isn't exactly new.

Some of this goes back as far the mid-1990s, and the very same measures in exactly the same language were being urged as recently as November 2003, spearheaded by the former Liberal Party Prime Minister Paul Martin and allies in the Canadian Parliament. This was a Liberal Party move, and it failed at the time. The 2003 bill was virtually identical to the "new" C-10.

When Canada's government moved to strip tax credits from film and video productions that are "contrary to public policy," an election was on the horizon, and the public's reaction was swift and unanimous. No one noticed.

That was in November, 2003, when Paul Martin was about to take over from Jean Chretien as Liberal Prime Minister, and tax reform was low on the public priority list. With little fanfare and even less scandal, and after what they described as a long period of industry consultation, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and Minster of Heritage Sheila Copps proposed that Canadian film and video productions will receive tax credits provided that "public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy."

Almost five years later, draft legislation with those exact words made it through the House of Commons with barely a whisper of dissent--Liberal John McCallum called it "sensible"--and is now before the Senate for review. ("Uproar over 'contrary to public policy," The National Post, 03.08.2008)

But what do they want to ban? According to supporters of the changes, we get the usual sweeping-generalities from the 1980s: it would mean films with "gratuitous and extreme" content, namely sex and violence. You know. Sounds like the rhetoric of the extreme right, doesn't it? Why would the Liberal Party support such an obvious rightist agenda? Neither side appears to harbor any sense of nationalism in protecting Canadian media's autonomy, so other forces must be at-play. Business reasons.

And so, the argument is that there is a great concern over the content of Canadian productions, but not foreign ones (primarily American). Yet, there's plenty of gratuitous sex and violence in American productions lensed in Canada, such as the recent "Masters of Horror" series, filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia, which featured both extreme horror and even depictions of graphic sexual violence (this isn't an attack on anyone's right to create these productions, incidentally, this writer is a fan of the series). Masters of Horror received a Telefilm credit for each-and-every episode produced in B.C. Under this legislation, there are numerous other productions in Canada right now which would lose funding were they domestic ones. The real hit will come to the Canadian film and media houses, and not to American ones.

This brings us back again to the example of the now-defunct "Masters of Horror" television series. If these provisions pass the Canadian Parliament, such a series could still be produced by a foreign production company, but not a domestic one. Even more shocking, Canadian television productions will also be affected by the amendments to this newest Telefilm tax bill.

To Americans, groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition (http://www.familyaction.org/) ring a very familiar bell. Like the American Focus on the Family, their focus is an extreme form of theocratic and anti-democratic rhetoric, calling for a rollback on basic rights and human services that the majority of Canadians and Americans have been traditionally accustomed to. What they really represent are authoritarian-trends in business and government which are empowering and using such groups as fronts for one legislative push after another. The play-book begins with the United States, and cross border ideological-ties between the extreme religious and political right in both nations stretches back to rightist demagogues like Father Charles Coughlin and the Canadian Nationalist and Fascist parties like Heritage Front, and could also be described as white supremacist and corporatist. Not your friendly neighborhood folks, but at least they have allies in skyscrapers, government ministries, and country clubs, who hold the same opinions.

Perversely, the right in both North American nations are suggesting that they know what everyone's standards are--the ones formulated by shadowy groups like Focus on the Family and the Canada Family Action Coalition. Who pulls their strings? One could expect elements of their membership to be represented in future appointments to the Heritage Department. A well-known Canadian evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office. "We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government." Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign. "There are a number of Conservative backbench members that do a lot of this work behind the scenes," he said. Mr. Day and Mr. Nicholson said through officials yesterday they did not recall discussing the issue with Mr. McVety. ("Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown," The Globe and Mail, 02.29.2008)

It's interesting that the Tories want to distance themselves publicly from Mr. McVety, but that's because one could correctly assume that he's that bumbling underling who's said too much. If Mr. McVety's comments are to be taken at-face-value, there's a good deal of impropriety going on in the Prime Minister's office these days regarding this censorship push. This shouldn't be any surprise to even the most casual observer.

When you have someone like Charles McVety getting preferential access to the Prime Minister of Canada, it's not about "public policy"at all, but about a narrow and private agenda (the public-be-damned). If it resembles the rollback of rights in the United States by neoconservatism, it should. These groups and politicians are their allies in Canada. What this most resembles are the "faith-based initiatives" foisted on the American public by the Bush administration and an extremist segment of North American evangelicals.

The ties between the politicized congregations are deeper than one might suspect. In October 2006, San Antonio-based mega-church evangelist John Hagee came to speak at Canada Christian College on recent actions by Israel in the war on terrorism, the "impending threat" of Iran, and the ties-that-bind Canadian and American evangelicals (money and fanaticism). His host? Again, it was Charles McVety.

Hagee’s assessment of Harper isn’t based on news clips alone. His Toronto host, not to mention his longtime Canadian major-domo, was Canada Christian College president Charles McVety, one of the most outspoken players in this country’s religious right wing. During the last election, as head of a handful of pro-family lobbies including the Defend Marriage Coalition, McVety emerged as a power to be reckoned with. He bought up the rights to unclaimed Liberal websites such as josephvolpe.com and stacked a handful of Conservative nomination contests in favour of evangelical candidates adamantly opposed to same-sex matrimony, a campaign he has vowed to repeat. As Harper navigates the tricky waters of minority rule—keeping the lid on any eruptions of rhetorical fervour from the rambunctious theo-cons in his caucus—it is noteworthy that he has continued to cultivate a man regarded as the lightning rod of the Christian right. ("Stephen Harper and the theo-cons," The Walrus, October 2006 issue)

An American could replace the names with the familiar Bible-backed demagogues running amok here in the South--it all sounds the same as the meddling of religion with politics here. Where did this new push all begin?

The answer is very simple: the movie "Karla," about the Homolkas and their saga of rape that culminated in a double-murder of two Canadian school girls during the 1990s. It's possible the couple murdered others, including Homolka's own baby-sister by poisoning. The 2006 film stars Lora Prepon of "That 70s Show" fame. The movie got such an ugly reaction during its 2005 production from canucks that it had to move shooting to the United States.

While the reaction from Canadians was to be expected--Karla Homolka orchestrated the murders, controlling her husband Paul Bernardo, but got-off with a questionable plea deal--it was immediately exploited by both the Liberal and Tory parties. Using the bodies of victims as one's starting-point is both unholy and unethical. One would think the theme of sexual sadism has struck some kind of nerve within the ranks of Canada's political and economic elites, never mind the cultural and religious ones.

Perhaps this pain of recognition was along-the-lines of Pasolini's "Salo "(1975), since power corrupts all who hold it. Sometimes, the truth is a mirror that's too painful to glimpse one's reflection in. Only Hollywood will come out well in this if C-10 passes in the Canadian Senate. Will censoring Canada's films prevent another Karla Homolka? With social policies in North America, and the element of genetics, it's not likely to accomplish anything but censorship. That's exactly what the architects of this legislation want, and not much else.

"Uproar over 'contrary to public policy," The National Post, 03.08.2008:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=361318

"Stephen Harper and the theo-cons," The Walrus, June 2006 issue:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-religion-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/

"Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown," The Globe and Mail, 02.29.2008: http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles02290804.asp

"Censorship Charges Fly as Canada Moves to Cut Film Tax Credit," Bloomberg, 03.21.2008: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aQ473RO0jlU8

Keeping up with our SECRETS EXPOSED meme of 2008

I could "Run" this without saying anything.

But I KNOW about these things. I've had experience with THESE Things.

And there is truly a Dark Side. And I've had people dumping information right into my "lap" for the past three weeks about Vancouver, Berlin and Portugal the truth be told.

Virginia
Sorry about the underlines - if you don't like them, go to the site.

Beyond the Dutroux Affair
The reality of protected child abuse and snuff networks
July 25, 2007 [Smaller articles will be uploaded without any announcements made on the front page]

Ever since the Dutroux affair broke in August 1996, there have been rumors that its central character was part of a wider network of child abusers. Some might remember the video
Many of these blank faces will not be so anonymous anymore after reading this article. <>tapes that were allegedly found in Dutroux's houses and about which nothing was heard anymore (this actually was an unfounded rumor); others might remember statements from Dutroux about being a "pawn" in a network protected by police and justice officials. However, these reports are not even the tip of the iceberg of what has actually been going on in Belgium. To really gain some understanding of what the Dutroux affair was all about, we need to take a step back and see all the other aspects which at least in the early years made up the Dutroux investigation. It will soon become obvious that by early 1997, Dutroux had become almost a mere footnote in scandal that really had begun to threaten the very existence of Belgium. Besides a whole range of petty criminals, secret investigations were also being opened against an ever increasing amount of politicians, bankers, police officers and magistrates.

It was only after a number of strategic changes in the investigative chain of command had been made that a beginning could be made with shutting down all the inconvenient parallel investigations which had sprung up in the weeks and months after Dutroux had been arrested. The cooperation of the vast majority of the media in this cover up has been crucial.

This article will attempt to spread the many forgotten and unreported details of the Dutroux affair to the English-speaking world, which not only in numbers, but also in terms of
percentages, is much more open to conspiracy affairs than the Dutch, Belgians or French (although things are rapidly changing here too). There are a number of important differences between this article and previous publications though: 1) In this article you can find all the names of the alleged abusers which had to be taken out of mainstream books and publications to avoid massive libel suits. 2) A leaked official document from the Dutroux investigation has been included with this article, leaving no doubt these names have actually been mentioned (often repeatedly). I recommend you download both this article		Pictures of Etienne Davignon and Maurice Lippens at Bilderberg, superimposed on extracts (and a picture) from the X-Dossiers.
and the leaked document, and put both of them on the net in case this article disappears one day. 3) Because names are mentioned in this article, together with very extensive biographies, it was far easier to describe the big picture, which might be an important thing to do.*

* Then again, I'm a largely anonymous conspiracy theorist; the ones who wrote, for example, the book 'De X-Dossiers' were respected journalists. I can get away with theorizing about the big picture; they cannot.

Daily Mail paints picture of Portugal very similar to PEHI's 'Beyond the Dutroux Affair'
Additionally: a brief state of affairs on PEHI
October 21, 2007

First of all, I want to thank everyone who read -or attempted to read- the 'Beyond the Dutroux Affair' article, and especially those who commented on it and spread it around to friends, newspapers and occasionally to their favorite artists.

You might think otherwise when reading newspaper or skeptics magazine articles on these subjects, but even when faced with such extremely disturbing facts as described in this article, when it is well-referenced, the vast majority of people (tens of thousands have come across it by now) remain very open-minded.

And that's quite amazing, considering that even I, by the time I reached part 15, regularly said to myself, "How the hell did I end up discussing this? Should I really go this far?" But then you go over the facts again, and if you want to prevent self-censorship for fear of being "discredited", you just have to address the obvious possibilities, no matter how uncomfortable they sound; and that's just what has been done. And you know what, judging from all the responses, PEHI is creating far more conspiracy theorists than skeptics.

Daily Mail on Dr. Kelly
Speaking of conspiracy theorists, the latest victim of this most unfortunate mental disease appears to be The Daily Mail. I just did my routine check of Prisonplanet and came across a Daily Mail article about Dr. David Kelly, the scientist who was found dead in the woods right after criticizing the WMD dossier in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

The newspaper discusses the new book of Norman Baker, a Member of Parliament, who conducted a year long investigation into the death of Dr. Kelly. What's so interesting is that the Daily Mail doesn't take the "skeptical" approach; it just lays out the story as told by Baker (actually, Baker wrote it, apparently without a lot of editing): Kelly was assassinated in a "wet operation", likely by CIA and MI6 assets. To make matters worse, official investigators have been covering up the crime and nosy investigators were tracked down and intimidated.

This is quite an amazing article. I've recently gone through hundreds upon hundreds of British and US newspaper articles dealing with conspiracies and it is very, very rare for newspapers to not attempt to undermine the credibility of the conspiracy advocate (no matter what his or her rank) by personal attacks, one-sided reporting and deceptive arguments. It's quite amazing that Baker has been allowed to speak his mind so freely in such a major publication. Compare it for example with the article from The Independent, which offers a far more familiar approach.

Daily Mail on Casa Pia and McCann
Because of my article on the X-Dossiers, I've been asked several times about Madelaine McCann case. A summary of my opinion is contained in an email reply from September 21:

"[I hardly followed the case, but] if I had to guess, the McCann's were smeared by the Portuguese police. One of the reasons I think that is because in other cases of child abuse (Belgian) where the parents have been implicated, the parents always tried to keep a low profile. That's exactly the opposite of the McCann's. Also, in the few instances that I followed the McCann case I noticed how the Portuguese police used cherry-picked excerpts from the mother's diary which, I thought, were unjustly meant to paint the mother as someone who wanted to get rid of her daughter. But like I said, I hardly followed the case. "

Besides the David Kelly story, another highly revealing article can be found on the Daily Mail frontpage, this time about the Madelaine McCann case.

In 'Beyond the Dutroux Affair', it was described how a cabal of highest level players, including judges, lawyers, top bankers, prime ministers and aristocrats were involved in child abuse and snuff networks (going right up to Bilderberg and the Nazi Stay-Behind networks). It was also described how this cabal could place their own investigators in leading positions of the child abuse investigations and dismantle it by blocking important inquiries, putting detectives on false leads, and making carefully planned leaks to friendly newspapers.

The Daily Mail article relates the same thing, and although they largely quote someone else's opinion, it is clear they support the conspiracy point of view, for instance because they do not ridicule the victim-witnesses; at the same time they paint the worst picture possible of Goncalo Amaral, the police chief accused of manipulating the McCann investigation. A rather long excerpt (not about Amaral):

"As well as growing fears that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile ring, they can have little hope of justice when leading Portuguese figures are allegedly involved in covering-up their own child sex scandal. Both cases [Casa Pia and McCann] - the two highest profile criminal investigations in the country since the end of the Portuguese military dictatorship in 1974 - have been riven by allegations of compromised police officers, high-level interference and vicious, virulent attacks on key witnesses.

Pedro Namora, a former Casa Pia orphan who witnessed 11 rapes on fellow orphans, during which they were tied to their beds, sympathises with the McCanns. He believes elements in the force have conspired to suppress both scandals, fearing damage to the country's reputation.

"Portugal is a paedophiles' paradise," said Mr Namora, now a lawyer campaigning on behalf of the Casa Pia victims. "If all the names come out, this will be an earthquake in Portugal. There is a massive, sophisticated network at play here - stretching from the government to the judiciary and the police.

"The network is enormous and extremely powerful. There are magistrates, ambassadors, police, politicians - all have procured children from Casa Pia. It is extremely difficult to break this down. These people cover for each other, because if one is arrested, they all are arrested. They don't want anyone to know."

Now 44, Mr Namora watched as friends sank into alcoholism, drug addiction and death after their traumatic childhood experiences at Casa Pia. "I was the only one who made it," he said. "What could I do? I couldn't keep silent."

He has received death threats and warnings about what will happen to his own children, after taking up the case when an orphan called "Joel" approached him, saying prominent paedophiles were using Casa Pia as a "supermarket for children".

Mr Namora has been threatened after fighting on behalf of the abused children he grew up with.

After being telephoned by a stranger offering to pay off his mortgage, he was told the exact movements of his own three children, and warned that they and their father would come to a grisly end unless he shut up." ...

Teresa Costa Macedo, a former secretary of state for the family, has revealed that she knew about the attacks in the early Eighties - and that she had alerted General Antonio Ramalho Eanes, the then Portuguese president, about the allegations.

Mrs Costa Macedo, who remained silent for two decades after being warned she would be killed if she spoke, now says that the caretaker "was just one element in a huge paedophile network that involved important people in our country. It wasn't just him [the caretaker]. He was a procurer of children for well-known people who range from diplomats and politicians to people linked to the media".

Although not a whole lot, in the past the British press has written very decent articles about child abuse networks in such countries as the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy and Russia. But interestingly, there has seldom been any real follow-up on these initial articles and the British press continues to fail to write in depth about the child abuse scandals in their own country. Also in this case I've gone over hundreds of British news reports about child abuse going back to the late 1980s, but only a small percentage was interesting enough to be used in the 'Beyond the Dutroux Affair' article. This new Daily Mail article is a great addition; hopefully more will follow.

State of affairs on PEHI

Several articles are being worked on, with one in particular taking up a lot of time. A lot of these articles will be published at the same time, probably somewhere in the first half of 2008. Smaller articles will be uploaded without any announcements made on the front page

Pedophile priest crime victims who can't file civil lawsuits, the "silent victims"

by Kay Ebeling

http://www.opednews.com


Silent Victims: Neither church nor advocates have done enough. “You don’t patch over the rot, you expose it,” says Boston organizer Paul Kellen

*****
By Kay Ebeling

"There could be 1400 silent victims in Providence, Rhode Island, alone."


First: Deposition transcripts from cases of 30-year Santa Barbara pedophile priest Matthew Kelly, now posted by Nye Peabody Stirling and Hale in Santa Barbara on their website (linked in left-hand column of this blog) and WO-O-O-O-O-W. You can click into the documents, read the deposition transcripts, AND copy and paste sections into your own writing.

Now it begins: nonstop proof of church crimes and coverups as documents start pouring out from resolved civil cases. Especially gratifying to me since last September when Bishop Brom said he hoped the San Diego settlements bring “closure to all the victims,” I erupted. How can settlements to about 10 percent of the crime victims bring closure?

Last week when I read this phrase:

“the importance of outreach to still silent victims,”

I had to phone the contact person on the press release from People of Conscience in Boston to find out more. They held a rally outside the Voice of the Faithful national meeting last week.

According to spokesman Paul Kellen, “For every one victim there are 10 others. Those are the silent victims. If they don’t come forward and identify their abuser, then we're not going to know who the guy is.

“And pedophiles don’t stop. If they (the church and advocacy groups) treat the public survivors in such a shabby manner then we are not encouraging the silent survivors to come forward.”

Bishop Accountability Dot Org held a press conference at the VOTF national meeting showing another place where you can find the “silent victims.” Documents released by attorneys for the archdiocese in Rhode Island contradict numbers released by the Rhode Island Archdiocese in the John Jay Report. Paul Kellen described the situation:

“

In the John Jay Report the Diocese of Providence reported from 1957 - 2002, there were 56 accused priests.

“The diocese of Providence is now being sued by somebody within the statute of limitations for failure to supervise and in that case the Judge ordered release of documents.

“The diocese is objecting due to undue hardship because we would have to prepare copies of documents on 125 accused pedophiles.

“So they just said 125 accused priests since 1971, in their own documents filed with Superior Court in Providence by their own attorneys.

“The number of names they released in Providence is 11. So that means there are 114 that nobody knows who they are.

“And

“For every one victim there are 10 others -- those are the ten silent victims.”

There could be 1,400 silent victims in Providence, Rhode Island alone.
TALK ABOUT SILENT VICTIMS!

I Wouldn't Make It Past the Interrogatories

I read more closely the Interrogatories that LA crime victims had to fill out in order to get their lawsuits past archdiocese attorneys, posted at City of Angels 11 forwarded by Kiesel Boucher & Larson plaintiff firm.

I wouldn't have gotten past the second or third question. How can I give addresses of my family members when no one in my family has spoken or seen each other since my dad’s murder in 1997? How can I give the name and address of every employer, when I’ve had hundreds of jobs, some that only lasted a few days, some a few weeks, a few months. That's a pattern with so many pedophile priest crime victims.

How many potential plaintiffs were discouraged before they got past Interrogatory 20?

People who lived lives like mine can’t carry on casual conversation around a water cooler.

(PARAGRAPH CUT HERE AND PASTED AT THE BOTTOM DUE TO VERY DIFFICULT DETAILS FOR ME TO RELEASE)

Kellen believes neither the church nor most advocacy groups are doing enough to reach the “silent victims.”

“My reason for organizing this rally is I believe we are not doing enough. I can look at everything that's being done and say no.

“The way the church attacks the family, the victim, anybody who supports the victim, discourages other plaintiffs from coming forward,” says Kellen.

“The biggest negative, let’s start where it starts -- Bernard Law going to Rome. You send a message to the clergy, hey fellows if you do what you're supposed to do, we'll take care of you.

“Did it stop with Bernard Law, no.

“That isn’t to say that the classes etcetera the church has started aren’t positive and helpful. That sensitivity is good. However to me --

HERE IS THE KING OF METAPHORS FOR THE DAY

Paul Kellen:

“You don’t patch over the rot, you expose it.”

“There’s rot at the end of a gutter, but before you can do the repairs, you have to expose all the rot. You don’t patch over it, you have to expose it all,” Kellen says. “This organization is patching over and hiding all that it can.”

He means the church AND the advocacy organizations who try to cowtow to the church

The best way to find out about silent victims, he said, is talk to plaintiff attorneys. So City of Angels Lady is loading up her speed dials.

Attorneys have told Kellen that for every case they take regarding clergy sex abuse, they turn away three, because they are un-litigatable cases.

Like mine.
Unlitigatable cases. People without closure.
We who cannot sue
are the silent victims.
And I am determined to keep babbling.

The longer I research to write this blog the more I realize:

The people like me who couldn't file lawsuits almost always end up being the ones with the most horrendous stories.

There’s women who have eerily similar stories about Satanic ritual abuse that accompanied their childhood experiences at the hands of Catholic priests, most of these stories come from Pennsylvania, northern Ohio, out of the way areas of the Midwest. City of Angels will report one of these stories soon.

Some lives are SO damaged that carrying out something like a lawsuit is -- impossible.

Most victims of priest pedophilia aren’t able to take part in anything as civilized as a civil lawsuit. If you're living in a cardboard box, you might miss the news that a 2-year window has opened for you to file a suit about the abuse you suffered 30 years ago, even if that's probably the core of why you're living in a cardboard box.

*****$$$???!!!
I hope you enjoy reading this blog. Please come back often and visit my advertisers. I also pass the Internet hat. You can support this blog by putting cash on my PayPal account. Just click the button in the top left corner. I report all income to the IRS. Thank you.
END COMMERCIAL BREAK*****

Paul Kellen also said this about Boston activism:

“In the early days hundreds of people came to Voice of the Faithful meetings. We had steering committees with typically 20 people. We have a group of people that on any Sunday there’s between 8 and 10 who show up in front of Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston before the 11:30 Mass every Sunday. We had a snow storm so bad they called off Mass and there were two people outside the church on the sidewalk.”

Why can’t people in LA do things like that? Last September hmm, about the same time Brom was delivering his ridiculous apology quotes that set me off on a month long anger rage that hasn’t ended, a few of us met at the local Starbuck’s to talk about the future of the clergy sex abuse issue and about the only things we agreed on were

A - it’s almost impossible to get people in LA to be activists because we all have three or four jobs we have to juggle just to survive

And

B - if there is an issue for the future in this crime it’s the thousands of victims who have not gotten any settlement, any “closure,” and whose perpetrators are not even named in any databases.

*****
Here is the pasted paragraph from above:

No one in my family speaks since my dad’s murder, by a family member, in 1997. Yes, there’s that much dysfunction in just this one family, and yes, you can trace the animosity and anger that led to the murder DIRECTLY back to the jealousy that resulted from a priest diddling two of the daughters and not the eldest.

More to come. . .

www.cityofangels3.blogspot.com

Wordsmith working in TV production in Los Angeles. Also free lance journalist with an active blog. Old enough to have demonstrated against the Vietnam War but still young enough to dance.

New UK homosexual crimes bill a bafflement
Still protecting adults but NOT children in the UK

New UK law means anti-gay comments could lead to seven years in jail


Source: Daily Mail - STEVE DOUGHTY and JAMES SLACK

Stirring up hatred against homosexuals is to become a serious crime punishable with a seven-year jail sentence under a law announced last night.

The legislation - similar to laws already in force outlawing persecution on religious or racial grounds - will make criminals of those who express their views in ways that could lead to the bullying or harassment of gays.

The maximum sentence is longer than the average of around five years
handed to rapists.

The announcement widened the rift between opposing supporters of freedom of speech and gay rights.

Christian groups condemned it as "a law to allow Christians to be locked up for what they believe".

But the gay pressure group Stonewall said those who disapprove of homosexuals would have nothing to fear from the law if they express their views in a manner that is "temperate" and "polite".

Justice Secretary Jack Straw told MPs the gay harassment law will be included as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill currently going before Parliament, though ministers have yet to decide the wording.

Mr Straw said: "It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last ten years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality.

"It is time for the law to recognise this."

He raised the prospect of extending the law to cover to "transgendered" people and the disabled.

The new law aims to catch those who do not explicitly call for attacks ordiscrimination against homosexuals, as this is covered by existing
incitement laws.

Instead, police will be allowed to pursue those who create an "atmosphere or climate" in which hatred or bullying can be fostered. Officials said it would not prohibit criticism of gay, lesbian and bisexual people or joke-telling.

The final decision over who has "crossed the line" will rest with the police.

Criminal legislation on gay harassment follows the recent Sexual Orientation Regulations which make discrimination against gays an offence aga legislation to ensure that it safeguards the safety and rights of minorities without jeopardising wider concerns for freedom of expression,including the expression of religious faith."

But Stonewall chief Ben Summerskill said: "We are crystal clear that this is not about constraining anyone from expressing their religious views in a temperate way.
"It is about preventing people from inciting hatred, whether through the lyrics of rap musicians or Muslim organisations which hand out leaflets saying that all homosexuals are paedophiles."

• Parents will be told if a paedophile posing a threat to their child moves into their home or street under amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill introduced last night.

But there is still no general right for parents to ask if there is a paedophile living in their neighbourhood, as demanded by "Sarah's Law" campaigners after the murder of Sarah Payne seven years ago.