Pizzagate. Plus, Ex-FBI Undercover Agent Bob Hamer |357|

Ben Garrison hits the spot again. :)

62iO6YZ.jpg
 
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...kids-michele-obama-public-library-long-beach/


Satanic Looking Drag Queen with Horns Reads to Little Kids at Michelle Obama Public Library in Long Beach
by Kristinn Taylor

The Michelle Obama Public Library in Long Beach, California hosted a satanic looking drag queen on Saturday who read books to young children as part of the library’s celebration LGBTQ History Month.

The shocking photo of a man dressed as a female demon with giant horns on his head reading to little children at a public library was posted to Twitter and Facebook by the Long Beach Library but taken down after a huge outpouring of critical replies, including from GOP Congressional candidate Omar Navarro. It also got the approval of the Church of Satan.

drag-queeen-book-4-600x305.jpg
 
To restate AGAIN, I am not denying there are bad actors doing hurtful and unethical things while being protected by money and power. I am questioning the conjecture that it is an organized, purposeful thing across the entire controlling elite.

I suppose the Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Saville affairs at least tell us that large institutions - Hollywood and the BBC are capable of collectively turning a blind eye to severe abuse when it suits them. Edward Heath's case isn't proven (and maybe not even plausible), but it seems completely clear that a former prominent Liberal MP, Cyril Smith, abused a string of boys, and his actions were covered up by the state.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-41645682

How much organisation do you really need?

I mean, I used to dismiss accusations against prominent figures, assuming that such crimes were only committed by sick men in dirty raincoats. Clearly that isn't true.

David
 
Last edited:
I suppose the Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Saville affairs at least tell us that large institutions - Hollywood and the BBC are capable of collectively turning a blind eye to severe abuse when it suits them.
Totally agree. My question: Is this unique to institutions? Do families turn blind eyes to certain members? Do communities? Small businesses? Sports teams?

I keep looking for some smoking gun here that uncovers an organized, scheming group of evil elites looking to dominate society. What I keep seeing are bad actors in their ranks not unlike what we see in most (all?) other aspects of society. Perhaps they over index in the power broker community; perhaps they don't.

Might we be conflating enablers turning a blind eye for conspirators serving a common, organized cause?
 
What evidence would convince you such a thing exists?
Two answers, one presuming your question is earnest and another in case it isn't. ;)

Earnest: I don't know and I get that's probably the rub. I would find it difficult to believe that the number of complicit individuals required to maintain secrecy for something that deplorable and "evil" (e.g., pedophilia) would even be possible. I have found the saying "there are no secrets" to be largely true. Further, while I am well aware of our general penchant to suppress our own morality and ethics when they conflict with personal "gain", this goes well beyond that. I think there would be too many people unwilling to subjugate their outright horror for a modicum of power/wealth to keep quiet.

Not earnest: Evidence.
 
Two answers, one presuming your question is earnest and another in case it isn't. ;)

Earnest: I don't know and I get that's probably the rub. I would find it difficult to believe that the number of complicit individuals required to maintain secrecy for something that deplorable and "evil" (e.g., pedophilia) would even be possible. I have found the saying "there are no secrets" to be largely true. Further, while I am well aware of our general penchant to suppress our own morality and ethics when they conflict with personal "gain", this goes well beyond that. I think there would be too many people unwilling to subjugate their outright horror for a modicum of power/wealth to keep quiet.

Not earnest: Evidence.


Ok, but none of us really has "evidence" one way or another on almost anything in the 'news' (outside of our personal experience) right? Unless we are in law/law enforcement, or have been otherwise directly involved in the actual case at issue, none of us has direct evidence that any alleged abuse actually happened in most situations. It's generally only the victims' words against the perpetrators -- particularly when the abuse happened so long ago that direct evidence can no longer be collected/preserved. Even Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or Jerry Sandusky or the various catholic priests generally believed to be guilty of molestation/rape/abuse are only generally considered to be "guilty" because they have been ultimately exposed by mainstream media (and thus the court of popular opinion) -- or the numbers of accusers reaches some critical mass. So our belief in one story of abuse but not another is not because we have "evidence" for one and not the other. It is really just because we have formed our own personal opinions via whatever our go-to news media has deigned to cover, right?

I would argue that those who are getting their "news" from the mainstream media are getting a very whitewashed version of reality -- including the reality of high level organized groups engaged in pedophilia/sexual assault (and worse). I think people who only get their news this way also tend to dismiss even "direct evidence," such as direct testimonies of victims and witnesses, particularly where those victims/witnesses have not been able to present their cases to a mainstream audience/press.

For example, youtube is loaded with personal or alternative media videos where sexual assault/pedophilia/ritual abuse victims have spoken about their abuse and named names. Victims have written books naming names and groups too. But their voices are either ignored or outright dismissed by the MSM and those who follow it. They are often character-assassinated and their testimonies are deemed to lack credibility.

It's true that the other side of the coin could be that the alternative media could be sensationalizing stories that aren't true -- or have some religious/end of days/Satan is here fear-based agenda, and of course there are some liars and fabricators among "victim" groups, so it's possible that some of the heart-wrenching stories of sexual abuse/assault/ritual abuse could be no more authentic than the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter crying (and lying) about babies being pushed out of incubators.

But you have to ask yourself, once you've considered the direct testimonies, are they all liars/zealots/nutjobs? Or are they true victims and voices that speak the truth but will never be heard because they were victimized by those far more powerful than they are -- by those who are able to control the narrative?

For me, the high-level pedophile/abuse/murder story that forever altered my perception of reality was the Dutroux Affair. If you have not read about it in any depth, I would challenge you to do so. But it may lead you down a very dark rabbit hole from which you may never recover.

https://isgp-studies.com/belgian-x-dossiers-of-the-dutroux-affair

This article makes the case for a network of abusers that went far beyond one lone sick bad actor. It's not "evidence" of course -- but again, I am not sure what would be for those of us simply reading about such things and trying to fathom the depths of darkness presented.

On another note, somewhat relevant to our earlier discussion on psychopaths/sociopaths, I came across this snippet on Tracy Twyman's website.

"I recalled that in 120 Days of Sodom, the Marquis de Sade described men whose sexual fetish of choice involved renting out properties to single mothers with faults intentionally built into the design so that shortly after they took residence, the rooves would collapse on the women and children, giving pleasure to the cruel landlord who had set the whole thing up in the first place. Nowadays, in addition to the joy of committing murder and inflicting pain, the perpetrator would probably also be rewarded with a nice insurance settlement."

I do believe that there are humans (if you can call them human) still quite willing and able to commit various horrific crimes against humanity -- and who take great pleasure in doing so. I also tend to suspect there's something seriously amiss at the top levels of society.
 
Two answers, one presuming your question is earnest and another in case it isn't. ;)

Earnest: I don't know and I get that's probably the rub. I would find it difficult to believe that the number of complicit individuals required to maintain secrecy for something that deplorable and "evil" (e.g., pedophilia) would even be possible. I have found the saying "there are no secrets" to be largely true. Further, while I am well aware of our general penchant to suppress our own morality and ethics when they conflict with personal "gain", this goes well beyond that. I think there would be too many people unwilling to subjugate their outright horror for a modicum of power/wealth to keep quiet.

Not earnest: Evidence.
EVIDENCE

Jimmy Saville is now known to have abused kids over a long period of time while he was a celebrity at the BBC. Mostly these were young girls attending his "Top of the Pops" TV show, and others who were attracted to him by his fame. There was absolutely nothing consensual about what went on (and of course the girls were well under-age.

Many many years later, the BBC suppressed a program that was trying to expose this scandal, but shortly afterwards the truth came out.

Afterwards, many people spoke about how they were worried about Saville, and sometimes discussed it with their seniors in the BBC, but nothing effective was done.

Incredibly, it has also turned out that Saville would visit various children's' homes and even hospitals - ostensibly to cheer the kids up - and use his visits to abuse some of the kids - sometimes, it would seem with some assistance from the staff.

The problem is, I think, that in large organisations, people feel the responsibility to report things is not theirs, and that anyway nobody would listen - they would just lose their jobs. People don't choose to become privy to disturbing information of this sort, and when they do, they may rationalise it away in all sorts of ways.

David
 
Earnest: I don't know and I get that's probably the rub.

Thank you. That is indeed 'the rub' If you don't know what evidence would convince you, what you are really saying is that none would.

I have studied "Evil Elites" for 30 years. They exist. They do have a plan. It is documented.

In talking with people about my research one thing I've learned is not to waste time attempting to "convince" people of something they do not want to be made aware of. Because of that, what you are doing in this thread is basically a form of disingenuous trolling. That's not nice.
 
In talking with people about my research one thing I've learned is not to waste time attempting to "convince" people of something they do not want to be made aware of. Because of that, what you are doing in this thread is basically a form of disingenuous trolling. That's not nice.
So, let me get this straight. You've labeled me into some group of your own definition because I haven't accepted your assertions and "because of that" I'm trolling? I've found you to be condescending, arrogant and rigid. You somehow managed to pull all that together again in a single paragraph.

Arya, appreciate your post (and tone!). Question for you: Are all members of the controlling elite willing, enthusiastic believers in the cause? Perhaps some aren't believers but aren't willing to challenge things out of concern for their own continued power/wealth. Yet there are none who would have the moral and ethical base to be so appalled as to attempt to expose them? What's the endgame?
 
The problem is, I think, that in large organisations, people feel the responsibility to report things is not theirs, and that anyway nobody would listen - they would just lose their jobs. People don't choose to become privy to disturbing information of this sort, and when they do, they may rationalise it away in all sorts of ways.
Sort of relates to my series of questions to Arya. "All people"? There wouldn't be one, or two, or dozens of people in powerful positions who wouldn't feel compelled to take action? Or, more aptly, if there is a broad based controlling elite of like, evil mind; what about those in powerful positions who are moral, who are good? Are they aware of this group of "evil elites" and if so what are those implications?
 
Sort of relates to my series of questions to Arya. "All people"? There wouldn't be one, or two, or dozens of people in powerful positions who wouldn't feel compelled to take action? Or, more aptly, if there is a broad based controlling elite of like, evil mind; what about those in powerful positions who are moral, who are good? Are they aware of this group of "evil elites" and if so what are those implications?
Yes, but did you read what I wrote? Huge numbers of people had strong suspicions that something was wrong. Some of the staff in the children's' institutions that he frequented, actually helped him!

A possibly analogy is with the nuclear arms race. If there are survivors of a major nuclear war, they may look back in disbelief that people - mostly living in comfort and plenty - did nothing to stop that catastrophe.

David
 
I haven't accepted your assertions and "because of that" I'm trolling?

No. You are a disingenuous troll because you said no evidence would convince you.

Thus, all your posts in this thread are not genuine truth-seeking questions or legitimate debate. They are trolling.
 
No. You are a disingenuous troll because you said no evidence would convince you.
That's not what I said at all. I'm sure you knew that already, but are choosing to misrepresent what I said not one or two mousewheel rotations above.

Thus, all your posts in this thread are not genuine truth-seeking questions or legitimate debate. They are trolling.
Truth seeking, sure. Debating, no as it seems nearly impossible to have convincing counters to conspiracy theories. (Asking questions? Sure.)

You should really read what you post. The old adage about those living in glass houses comes to mind.
 
Yes, but did you read what I wrote? Huge numbers of people had strong suspicions that something was wrong. Some of the staff in the children's' institutions that he frequented, actually helped him!
I did. I'm trying to differentiate between people of similar magnitude in wealth/power vs those who are subservient on those measures. (e.g., staff, employees, etc.)

If this organized group of evil elites is plainly known what, if anything, are the "good" elites doing to expose/combat them?
 
I did. I'm trying to differentiate between people of similar magnitude in wealth/power vs those who are subservient on those measures. (e.g., staff, employees, etc.)

If this organized group of evil elites is plainly known what, if anything, are the "good" elites doing to expose/combat them?
Well my point is that people in a large organisation like the BBC don't feel personally responsible. They may have seen Saville taking an obviously underage girl into his dressing room, and maybe even seen her later looking upset, but hey - there are lots of more senior people in the BBC who must know what is going on and have OK'ed it - so ignore it.

The trouble is that sexual issues are rarely totally black and white - consent, age, intoxication, they help to blur the issue.

Jimmy Saville shows how it really happens. Look him up if you don't come from the UK.

David
 
Back
Top