New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 434810" data-attributes="member: 8">This comment is only about Part I, but I've seen something similar on youtube so I know what to expect from Part II.I'm not sure if I had ever heard of Jimmy Savile before   the controversy.  Maybe in passing or a Top Of The Pops clip in which he featured.We had our own celebrities doing those kind of shows therefore there was no need to focus on his achievements on Dutch television.Even before my time in 1962 they did a fundraising TV marathon to build a health care community for handicapped people. Of course it doesn't compare to the magnitude of the Stoke Mandeville project but it happened 10 years earlier in a much smaller nation.Interesting name, btw. Savile -> As Evil. And suprised it's pronounced as Savill, not Saveele.So the first part is about the public persona and I didn't know he was that  important. There are many successful entertainers and entrepreneurs in the world, but what really surprised me was to see how he played that persona consistently and exhaustingly.I mean, even The Beatles didn't actually have to do  something when they were in public, but JS could never not  be the JS persona, not for a single moment.Public figures of the authority kind benefited from his success to make themselves look more charismatic, and this is the point when I think "who's using who?".More jaw-droppingly, he became an adviser to the members of the Royal House!I mean, oh my god, he really was the British answer to Rasputin! On television!The crimes are shocking, but I wonder if the biggest shock is in the betrayal. Every time something like this happens, and it's happened a lot because of MeToo, I don't see a celebrity "who did that", but a celebrity "who got caught".Despite the many shocking revelations, it instantly makes me think of all the potential celebrity crimes that are not  being exposed.What I mean to say, and this is going to sound very bizarre, it's almost as if their biggest crime is getting caught. Because it ruins it for everybody, not just the evil-doer.Tiger Woods really  ruined it for all the many other adulterous celebrity husbands. And of course they have to play along and say things like "that terrible Tiger Woods, what an awful thing to do".No, I don't buy it.At the start of the video it was hinted at that he became this powerful phenomenon in order to do whatever he wanted to do.But that seems like an extremely elaborate scheme to me.It's like Ben Carrington saying "I'm going to build  myself an empire and then use that to destroy Blake". That's ridiculous.I wonder if it was the opposite for Jimmy Savile: a monster, a psychopath who used his skills to become a decent human being, even if it was only the façade thereof.The word "power" is usually connected with the effect it has on people without power, or a tool to protect and maintain a fortune/business, but not what it means to the powerful person him/herself.I think the most euphoric aspect of power is the feeling of being absolutely untouchable, which is probably the closest we'll ever get to immortality.This "proves" that, apart from divine power, all  human power is inherently wrong - as long as we don't confuse power with authority because authority exists for a good reason. Well, ideally.JS was very clever to throw the press a few bones. After all, that excuse of "I'm too busy to be married" is not going to be accepted forever.Even if I consider all the terrible things that had already happened, I think this was the point when his true psychopathic nature became more apparent. Possibly combined with that feeling of being untouchable.  It's a brilliant smoke screen and a step ahead of those who were trying to deconstruct the Jimmy Savile myth.Heck, I can imagine that the confessions of those personality flaws could make him even more   relatable.However, it didn't stop some people from connecting the dots. That was the end of Part I.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?