Thomas4

Would you argue that the financial gains of Savilles TV media appearances and Glitter et all musical offerings (vinyl and cassette or cds sold..) further funded their lifestyles which was far to LATER proved to of helped in the harm of children? I would say it did!!

The whole point is having something alluded to that cannot be proven in the case of the Saville case we learned proof or evidence was ALWAYS lacking.

Which is abit like knowing bears defacate in the woods but since no one is filming it or able to document it means it can be argued they don't defacate at all, not in the woods or anywhere.

I make NO ACCUSATIONS I simply want to attain what the motive is for the duo's clear focus on children (minors) which is replete with adult themes mixed in (sex, satanism, pornography)...or what that adds to the otherwise musical listening experience?

Can you answer that?

bob_32_116

I haven't listened to Boards of Canada, apart from maybe hearing one or two tracks on radio, I have to say that themes of satanisn or of anything illegal are a turnoff for me no natter who sings about them - but that's very different from accusing the artist of indulging in same, or even of encouraging it.

What disturbs me is this: you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of evidence is of no great importance. That would be news to most judges and lawyers. I reject that totally. I think you would reject it too if someone who for some reason doesn't like you decided to give you a hard time by broadcasting their opinion on the internet that Thomas4 is interested in child pornography or cannibalism or some other illegal activity.

The bear analogy is silly. Maybe we don't have photographic evidence that a particular bear defaecates in the woods, but observation of animals over the centuries have established with reasonable certainty that they all do something that can be called defaecation. More to the point, no one is accusing the bear of any crime and suggesting it be punished for it.



Next up: what is to be done about the penchant for serial killing held by such artists as Steven Wilson and Sufjan Stevens. We know they do this, because they have written songs about serial killers.

rostasi

The OP seems to want permission to talk about his “concerns” -
lest he’ll be thrown off (another?) forum. I’m just wondering why
the mental diarrhea of some others is such a “concern” of his -
and what does he plan to do if his concerns are warranted.

The other poster has brought up a different kettle of fish which is,
in some ways, even more of a bizarre pronouncement.

Frownland

BOC is gangstalking me.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

rostasi

Let’s discuss!

Trollheart

Don't fear them.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Tubeileh

yeah I wont lie, I confused myself with my earlier arguments lol. Happens...
Nah I don't know, just the general feeling I'm getting based on other people responses. But yes, not everyone, as you have made it pretty clear you find no interest in discussing it

Thomas4

Ok here are some other things that Im either noticing or are paranoid about.
A few more...

Children being seen on the cover of an album faceless (which to me makes them lose their identity and this could portray the sexual object side of this strange choice to show faceless children on your artwork and BoC did a remix of "sexual objects" out of millions of artist they could of remixes it coincidentally included "sexual objects" which is how pedophiles view children)

They have had massive help from the BBC in their promotional campaigns and the BBC has a VERY LONG LIST OF LINKS TO CHILD HARMING or children being harmed.
The BBC covered for Jimmy Saville for example. The duo's very rare and often fawned over appearance on the BBC came via a slot on R1 on a show presented by John Peel (who was also under investigation for child exploitation). The BBC would not report the racial murders of young white males (kriss Donald being the best well known example) creating the atmosphere for people like myself at least to believe the BBC has something against young white male children.
Then there is the interview with UNCUT where they try to answer for why they include samples of children and many of the answers in that interview give reference to the fact they wanted to promote children in a sad or unhappy context (again what does that lend to their music... unhappy children ? I make the link to the child being unhappy due to harm).

Then there are all the sexual innuendos in the lyrics (ejaculations under water and references to the nervous sexual energy before a dive (reference to having sex) being a tense time etc...
Another sexual reference is the title of a track called Rodox video ...Rodox being a pornographic magazine owned by the ColorClimax corporation......which was the first publication to offer CHILD PORNOGRAPHY due to exploiting the age of consent in Denmark. This magazine franchise also produced "bestiality" pornography.
The duo love leaving clues about this and have used the "treasure hunt" to promote their music so are heavily invested in "hints and clues" to things...

I really dont care for all the jibes at me...
Im just some bloke on the internet who is asking questions on a public forum using what little freedom of speech he has, so its par of the course, people generally attack the person. I can answer for my self ( I was abused as a child myself) and Boc shouldn't fear people asking questions if Im wrong I will admit Im paranoid and seek help.
The truth doesnt fear scrutiny so I dont fear people asking me....I tell you now I would like someone to answer why all the porn&child references and what does thatxlend to the music....even if it is art?
Can I not ask the question?
Im not attacking the duo and if they were not reclusive I might of been able to approach them directly....but that seems impossible and not by my own doing either.

Frownland

BOC is reading my mail. I spend thousands a year on stamps trying to directly communicate with them.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Thomas4

Im also wondering if these two brothers were abused as children and they perhaps want to leave clues in the music. I just don't know, but I sense something is off about there music as a complete artistic package (when you take into consideration all of the non musical content or information about them?

Also I own their music, having purchased it myself I have a duty to myself to know what it is Im "buying" into.

I think that is fair.
And Im not making accusations Im asking are Boards of Canada pro Pedophilia?
I used to watch Rolf Harris..my dad had vinyl of Gary Glitter...

Even the Beatles have references to harming a young girl (the lyrics are quite disturbing actually)...
I could even post here multiple references to other seemingly accepted household names that give references to child harm...but Im specifically asking about Boards of Canada.