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

[Silence]

Another truth is, most of us have never been in nor known the world of extreme wealth and power. We really have no idea what goes on in these worlds. We all (naively) think "they're just like us". But they aren't.

Isn't this a contradictory statement Vault?

I've met several individuals of extreme wealth and power in my career. Granted, I don't know any of them intimately and the settings in which I interacted with them were strictly professional. Some seemed extremely egocentric while others seemed rather balanced and down to earth. Quite frankly, they did not seem any different at this cursory level of introduction than folks not possessing extreme wealth/power. Now, my experience is hardly a refutation of anyone else's assertion that they are more prone to evil; more prone to pedophilia in this specific context. I'm simply questioning the apparently baseless assertion that their material wealth/power attribute somehow makes them different and hence more likely to be evil (again, in the context of this thread).

The point here is that you are projecting a difference while simultaneously asserting we have no idea what goes on in their "worlds". This seems all too common when discussing CTs: the tendency to see signs of confirmation bias; to see what we want to see (in this case an evil, pedophilia-riddled ruling elite).

 

[Vault313]

so glad you brought this up. of course it's almost impossible to get folks to look at this unless they're pretty far down the rabbit hole. If you do a google search on the McMartin case you'll find all sorts of data points support what yr saying.

This is such an important point. It was me stumbling upon the Franklin Scandal that started me on this dark path. I can't even remember now how I came across it, but my first reaction was "no way this is true." But I'm like a cat (my curiousity will be the end of me and I'm pretty sure I'm on my 8th or 9th life by now!) so I dug deeper. I was absolutely floored by what I found. However, the interesting aspect to this story was my husbands reaction when I told him about what I'd found. He got angry with me! He asked me "why do you have to talk about this stuff? It's awful and I don't want to hear it!". I was really taken aback by his reaction. But what I've found since is, his reaction is par for the course. Most people DON'T want to know. TBH, I don't really either, but, like I said, my curiosity gets the better of me.

Truth seeking is a strange thing. And honestly, I kind of hate that term because it's becoming so cliche in our time. But for those who do seek the truth, there is something which compels you. A feeling inside that won't let you rest, you have to know!

The problem is, it leads you into a labyrinth of dark corridors, dead ends and endless loops. It is easy to become paranoid and start seeing monsters in dark corners everywhere.

That's why I only take it in in small bits. I have to allow time to process. I think if you don't, it can lead to dark paranoid places for the seeker. I think the idea of "conspiracy loon" is somewhat derived from the fact that some people get sucked in and lose footing entirely (plus, some help from ours friends at the CIA in helping perpetuate the idea that any thought outside the mainstream is immediately delusional- gee, how terribly convenient for them).

I think the darkest realities which humans inhabit have been around as long as we have. The perpetrators of who is behind this evil, who or what is causing it, have changed over time. I would say, however, that perhaps the most concerning aspect to this is the idea, in our "modern" time, that evil doesn't exist at all.

Materialism presents a whole host of issues, but most see it as a denial of soul or the afterlife or of god. But on the flip side of that, it's also a denial of all evil as well. Everything becomes relative, there is no absolute morality which makes it hard to call something evil if moral judgements are obsolete.

It's not child molestation, its man-boy love! It [pedophilia] is just another sexual orientation! Children are individuals and thus should have the right to consent! (A fairly effective tactic. Cloak it in terms of "civil rights", basically perversing the whole idea).

You hear this idea more than you realize if you pay attention. One mans terrorist is another mans patriot! (As if the wholesale killing of innocents isn't actually evil, no, they're merely expressing their anger at an unfair system!).

Moral relativism is at the heart of many ills in modern society. It's a cancer so pervasive, most of us don't even see it. Worse, it's metastasizing.

 

[Vault313]

Isn't this a contradictory statement Vault?

I've met several individuals of extreme wealth and power in my career. Granted, I don't know any of them intimately and the settings in which I interacted with them were strictly professional. Some seemed extremely egocentric while others seemed rather balanced and down to earth. Quite frankly, they did not seem any different at this cursory level of introduction than folks not possessing extreme wealth/power. Now, my experience is hardly a refutation of anyone else's assertion that they are more prone to evil; more prone to pedophilia in this specific context. I'm simply questioning the apparently baseless assertion that their material wealth/power attribute somehow makes them different and hence more likely to be evil (again, in the context of this thread).

The point here is that you are projecting a difference while simultaneously asserting we have no idea what goes on in their "worlds". This seems all too common when discussing CTs: the tendency to see signs of confirmation bias; to see what we want to see (in this case an evil, pedophilia-riddled ruling elite).

I never said it makes them more prone to evil.

Moreover, I'm talking about REAL power and REAL wealth. The generational kind. The people you have met are likely nowhere near this level.

On top of that, I never insinuated that they were subhuman or superhuman. They are just humans. But you seem to be woefully uneducated in both the psychological research concerning the effects of power and money on the human psyche (that means ALL of us are prone to these same influences, for better or worse) and history.

Do you really believe the royals lived in the same reality as the people they ruled? Not. Even. Close.

What about the aristocracy? Was their reality the same as their servants? Not. Even. Close.

What about modern day? Does the queen of England live in the same reality as her subjects? What about Putin? Or Trump for that matter? Is their reality like ours? I doubt it. If you look into it you'll find that many at the highest echelons are members of legacy families. Their wealth and power goes back generations. Many weren't even raised in the same reality as the rest of us, which I think is in part the reason why government always has a tyrannical element to it. They literally DON'T understand the lives of your average Joe Sixpack.

Tell you what, there was an interesting show that aired in the U.K. called "Manor House". It was basically a "reality" show where people volunteered to live as though they were in the Edwardian era. A family was chosen as the aristocrats, the rest as servants. All laws and social rules of the era had to be observed.

It was absolutely fascinating what happened to both groups. The psychological transformation was more profound than you'd expect. Seriously, watch it. Watch what power and money, even fake power and fake money at very low levels, does.

Ther is a wealth of research to support my claims. Here's just one example:

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-26/edition-3/how-power-affects-brain

 

[D.R.Alit]

Probably an unpopular idea around here but here goes..

Conspiracies probably do exist but not in an expected way; if you believe that Satan exists that pretty much explains most of it. It isn't that individual people are all in it together, like rich people on the world stage, for example. But that the driving force behind most of the evil going on is Lucifer.

People will go to absurd lengths to escape the Satan explanation to the point that they will concoct improbable tales of some elite power structure controlling everything that happens in the world. But the loose ends don't tie up. Governments around the world cannot all be in cahoots if their political and religious sensibilities are completely at odds with each other.

It makes better sense to me that there are people in powerful positions driven by an evil inherent in themselves or from that fallen son of the morning. It's an uncomfortable realisation. But plenty of people can testify to the existence of evil entities throughout recorded history. Just because we are super advanced apes with this computer technology is no reason to think much has changed in that regard.

 

[Silence]

I never said it makes them more prone to evil.

I understand that, but the discussion is in the context of the Pizzagate CT and evil.

Moreover, I'm talking about REAL power and REAL wealth. The generational kind. The people you have met are likely nowhere near this level.

Okay, so where does one of the supposed key players like Podesta fit into this definition? He's a fair example of some government officials which whom I've had the opportunity to interact. Perhaps he's simply a pawn to the REAL/REAL as you put it.

But you seem to be woefully uneducated in both the psychological research concerning the effects of power and money on the human psyche

I certainly am. I have noticed (anecdotally of course) that some people seem to have a strong desire for power while others do not. I have further noticed that those (again, anecdotally) have tended to rise to higher corporate ranks in my industry. I do find it interesting. However, I'm not sure how its relevant to the stated goal of this interview/thread.

How extreme power/wealth affects people seems a side (or perhaps wholly unrelated) issue to the thrust of this thread. Harner's NAMBLA investigation seemed a sufficient jumping off point to address the questions of absolute evil/non-material forces and even how power would have played a role (as power/control was exerted by adults on children). I still don't see the need/connection to the Pizzagate CT and/or persons of extreme wealth/power.

 

[Baccarat]

Well we all know that politicians have more perks......in Chicago they do, recently a former judge came out and spoke about it

 

[D.R.Alit]

I need some ideas for an avatar (not your Hindu guru model version). Where can I find some?

 

[Reece]

Spoke too soon :D
Around 1h:52 Jones goes full-on-batshit-insane :D
Not even poor Rogan can keep his feet on the ground...

Yeah, he definitely goes past my threshold on the alien stuff . . . But it's entertaining. And I don't buy any "he's a fraud" stuff. He seems very in earnest to me, even if I think, like with the alien stuff, that it's completely crazy. Personally I'm not anti or super pro Alex Jones, but I almost never listen to him either.

 

[Reece]

Isn't this a contradictory statement Vault?

I've met several individuals of extreme wealth and power in my career. Granted, I don't know any of them intimately and the settings in which I interacted with them were strictly professional. Some seemed extremely egocentric while others seemed rather balanced and down to earth. Quite frankly, they did not seem any different at this cursory level of introduction than folks not possessing extreme wealth/power. Now, my experience is hardly a refutation of anyone else's assertion that they are more prone to evil; more prone to pedophilia in this specific context. I'm simply questioning the apparently baseless assertion that their material wealth/power attribute somehow makes them different and hence more likely to be evil (again, in the context of this thread).

The point here is that you are projecting a difference while simultaneously asserting we have no idea what goes on in their "worlds". This seems all too common when discussing CTs: the tendency to see signs of confirmation bias; to see what we want to see (in this case an evil, pedophilia-riddled ruling elite).

I was as non-conspiracy for the bulk of my life as anyone. During that time I said the same thing that all non-conspiracists do: that people didn't meet in dark, back rooms, dressed in cloaks as such and make special plans and arrangements and such . . . But rather that there were "business as usual" things going on that perhaps looked like big "conspiracy." I would've conceded that conspiracies did likely - certainly - happen, but that those things might be impossible to prove, especially with grainy photos and such.

911 changed all that. And now I believe that human nature is such that people will be tempted to do more than they've done before. Once a person in the top echelon and money becomes a nonexistent concern, it only stands to reason that some of these people now have to get their thrill from doing something on the level of manipulating a world event, for example. Once a person can more or less have sex with anyone, he may possibly turn to more devient options, like pedophelia for his thrill. I don't find this that far fetched at all.

 

[David Bailey]

Philemon,........

I am going to delete your post because it is trivial and rude - if you post more stuff of that type you are out.

David

 

[Baccarat]

Probably an unpopular idea around here but here goes..

Conspiracies probably do exist but not in an expected way; if you believe that Satan exists that pretty much explains most of it. It isn't that individual people are all in it together, like rich people on the world stage, for example. But that the driving force behind most of the evil going on is Lucifer.

People will go to absurd lengths to escape the Satan explanation to the point that they will concoct improbable tales of some elite power structure controlling everything that happens in the world. But the loose ends don't tie up. Governments around the world cannot all be in cahoots if their political and religious sensibilities are completely at odds with each other.

It makes better sense to me that there are people in powerful positions driven by an evil inherent in themselves or from that fallen son of the morning. It's an uncomfortable realisation. But plenty of people can testify to the existence of evil entities throughout recorded history. Just because we are super advanced apes with this computer technology is no reason to think much has changed in that regard.

Lucifer? You mean the light bearer? The planet Venus? Jesus? Dig a little deeper

 

[Silence]

I was as non-conspiracy for the bulk of my life as anyone. During that time I said the same thing that all non-conspiracists do: that people didn't meet in dark, back rooms, dressed in cloaks as such and make special plans and arrangements and such . . . But rather that there were "business as usual" things going on that perhaps looked like big "conspiracy." I would've conceded that conspiracies did likely - certainly - happen, but that those things might be impossible to prove, especially with grainy photos and such.

911 changed all that. And now I believe that human nature is such that people will be tempted to do more than they've done before. Once a person in the top echelon and money becomes a nonexistent concern, it only stands to reason that some of these people now have to get their thrill from doing something on the level of manipulating a world event, for example. Once a person can more or less have sex with anyone, he may possibly turn to more devient options, like pedophelia for his thrill. I don't find this that far fetched at all.

Thanks Reece.

I highlighted a portion of your response as it gets at the crux of my point. Ironically, Hamer's own contribution to the "Pizzagate" topic (again, there was no direct contribution as it was never discussed) pointed out that pedophiliacs seem to come from all walks of life. Wealthy, poor. Educated, uneducated. I would agree there would be no reason to belief the ultra powerful/wealthy crowd would be immune. The question is: what's the point?

I still don't see why Pizzagate is even part of the discussion as it relates to the interviewee (Hamer) and the stated theme (absolute evil, non-material forces acting upon human agents, etc.). Again, wasn't Hamer's investigation and prosecution of the NAMBLA criminals example enough?

 

[Vault313]

I understand that, but the discussion is in the context of the Pizzagate CT and evil.


Okay, so where does one of the supposed key players like Podesta fit into this definition? He's a fair example of some government officials which whom I've had the opportunity to interact. Perhaps he's simply a pawn to the REAL/REAL as you put it.


I certainly am. I have noticed (anecdotally of course) that some people seem to have a strong desire for power while others do not. I have further noticed that those (again, anecdotally) have tended to rise to higher corporate ranks in my industry. I do find it interesting. However, I'm not sure how its relevant to the stated goal of this interview/thread.

How extreme power/wealth affects people seems a side (or perhaps wholly unrelated) issue to the thrust of this thread. Harner's NAMBLA investigation seemed a sufficient jumping off point to address the questions of absolute evil/non-material forces and even how power would have played a role (as power/control was exerted by adults on children). I still don't see the need/connection to the Pizzagate CT and/or persons of extreme wealth/power.

Re: Podesta- useful idiot. As is the case I suspect with many lower level politicians.

So, here's a theory:

Take Hollywood: full of narcissistic, highly creative, very open individuals who basically are there because they gave their all to pursuing their dream. They luck out. Get a great breakout role and suddenly they're golden. Suddenly everyone wants them in their movies, they're getting invited to great parties, etc. They get a taste of success, the power and money that comes with celebrity and their ego is just floating on a cloud.

Then their agent tells them so and so from whatever studio called (major head honcho type) and they want a meeting with them. They go, and are told that as great as things are, they can get even better. They sign that dotted line before the words are even out of head honchos mouth. But it's a limited contract, because as great as they think this actor is, they've gotta prove they can swing it with the big guys.

So you go along, getting more popular, more money, better parties-they're in with the A-listers. Beautiful people are everywhere and let's say there's a beautiful woman, who looks young but assures she's 19. So, they have a "nice time" with her. Well, guess what? She's actually 14, and you'll be in a world of trouble if this gets out. But rest assured, the studio has your back, but, that contract is up for negotiation, and they want more from you. Maybe it's speaking out politically in a way which goes against your own beliefs.

But, they sign, because life is good, plus, they could be ruined forever if they don't. So, each time the ante is upped. They tow the line that "head honcho" draws, going further and further into places they never thought they would. And now they're trapped. If they speak out about the horrible things they've seen or done, they will be destroyed. So, they turn to drugs, alcohol, anything to escape the hell they've created for themselves.

It could be the same for politicians, or anyone who desires power, money, glory, whatever.

Is such a scenario true? I have no real idea. But I think it's within the realm of possibility.

So, how does this relate to Pizzagate? Well, the idea is that places like Comet Ping Pong are merely covers for trafficking. These are the guys that procure the "goods" (shudder). They get paid well, plus, they know whose partaking and who isn't. That's a fair amount of power, plus it's a system that basically supports itself with mutual silence. If Mr. pizza goes down, he has the ability to spill all the goods. If the politicians go down, old Mr. Pizza either gets taken out, or goes down with them.

So, basically two way blackmail. Both parties are compromised, so either one coming forward means mutually assured destruction.

 

[Baccarat]

Re: Podesta- useful idiot. As is the case I suspect with many lower level politicians.

So, here's a theory:

Take Hollywood: full of narcissistic, highly creative, very open individuals who basically are there because they gave their all to pursuing their dream. They luck out. Get a great breakout role and suddenly they're golden. Suddenly everyone wants them in their movies, they're getting invited to great parties, etc. They get a taste of success, the power and money that comes with celebrity and their ego is just floating on a cloud.

Then their agent tells them so and so from whatever studio called (major head honcho type) and they want a meeting with them. They go, and are told that as great as things are, they can get even better. They sign that dotted line before the words are even out of head honchos mouth. But it's a limited contract, because as great as they think this actor is, they've gotta prove they can swing it with the big guys.

So you go along, getting more popular, more money, better parties-they're in with the A-listers. Beautiful people are everywhere and let's say there's a beautiful woman, who looks young but assures she's 19. So, they have a "nice time" with her. Well, guess what? She's actually 14, and you'll be in a world of trouble if this gets out. But rest assured, the studio has your back, but, that contract is up for negotiation, and they want more from you. Maybe it's speaking out politically in a way which goes against your own beliefs.

But, they sign, because life is good, plus, they could be ruined forever if they don't. So, each time the ante is upped. They tow the line that "head honcho" draws, going further and further into places they never thought they would. And now they're trapped. If they speak out about the horrible things they've seen or done, they will be destroyed. So, they turn to drugs, alcohol, anything to escape the hell they've created for themselves.

It could be the same for politicians, or anyone who desires power, money, glory, whatever.

Is such a scenario true? I have no real idea. But I think it's within the realm of possibility.

So, how does this relate to Pizzagate? Well, the idea is that places like Comet Ping Pong are merely covers for trafficking. These are the guys that procure the "goods" (shudder). They get paid well, plus, they know whose partaking and who isn't. That's a fair amount of power, plus it's a system that basically supports itself with mutual silence. If Mr. pizza goes down, he has the ability to spill all the goods. If the politicians go down, old Mr. Pizza either gets taken out, or goes down with them.

So, basically two way blackmail. Both parties are compromised, so either one coming forward means mutually assured destruction.

Thank you

 

[Silence]

So, basically two way blackmail. Both parties are compromised, so either one coming forward means mutually assured destruction.

A hypothetical. Okay, certainly possible but as you stated you have no evidence to suggest this is the case. I get that we can imagine up any number of potential explanations.

But again I haven't seen anything to suggest Podesta is an evil guy willing to serve as minion to the real elite. I'm sure there are others in this email chain that would have to be similarly evil. Aren't we starting to suppose scenarios to fit the narrative?

Finally, the question as to the relevance of this entire pizzagate thing remains.

 

[Reece]

Thanks Reece.

I highlighted a portion of your response as it gets at the crux of my point. Ironically, Hamer's own contribution to the "Pizzagate" topic (again, there was no direct contribution as it was never discussed) pointed out that pedophiliacs seem to come from all walks of life. Wealthy, poor. Educated, uneducated. I would agree there would be no reason to belief the ultra powerful/wealthy crowd would be immune. The question is: what's the point?

I still don't see why Pizzagate is even part of the discussion as it relates to the interviewee (Hamer) and the stated theme (absolute evil, non-material forces acting upon human agents, etc.). Again, wasn't Hamer's investigation and prosecution of the NAMBLA criminals example enough?

Yeah, I agree, in so far as I understand you:

The interview with Hamer doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Pizzagate or Evil . . . I thought, too, that the interview would have something to do with Pizzagate and was disappointed that it was (largely) unrelated.

 

[malf]

A hypothetical. Okay, certainly possible but as you stated you have no evidence to suggest this is the case. I get that we can imagine up any number of potential explanations.

But again I haven't seen anything to suggest Podesta is an evil guy willing to serve as minion to the real elite. I'm sure there are others in this email chain that would have to be similarly evil. Aren't we starting to suppose scenarios to fit the narrative?

Finally, the question as to the relevance of this entire pizzagate thing remains.

It's helpful to present the thin pizzagate evidence with cases of more egregious, proven abuse as if there is some equivalence. To some extent this is what Alex did in the podcast, and several posters since have employed the same tactic. This tactic also allows the debater to paint their opponent as uncaring and unsympathetic.

 

[iPsoFacTo]

Re: Podesta- useful idiot. As is the case I suspect with many lower level politicians.

So, here's a theory:

Take Hollywood: full of narcissistic, highly creative, very open individuals who basically are there because they gave their all to pursuing their dream. They luck out. Get a great breakout role and suddenly they're golden. Suddenly everyone wants them in their movies, they're getting invited to great parties, etc. They get a taste of success, the power and money that comes with celebrity and their ego is just floating on a cloud.

Then their agent tells them so and so from whatever studio called (major head honcho type) and they want a meeting with them. They go, and are told that as great as things are, they can get even better. They sign that dotted line before the words are even out of head honchos mouth. But it's a limited contract, because as great as they think this actor is, they've gotta prove they can swing it with the big guys.

So you go along, getting more popular, more money, better parties-they're in with the A-listers. Beautiful people are everywhere and let's say there's a beautiful woman, who looks young but assures she's 19. So, they have a "nice time" with her. Well, guess what? She's actually 14, and you'll be in a world of trouble if this gets out. But rest assured, the studio has your back, but, that contract is up for negotiation, and they want more from you. Maybe it's speaking out politically in a way which goes against your own beliefs.

But, they sign, because life is good, plus, they could be ruined forever if they don't. So, each time the ante is upped. They tow the line that "head honcho" draws, going further and further into places they never thought they would. And now they're trapped. If they speak out about the horrible things they've seen or done, they will be destroyed. So, they turn to drugs, alcohol, anything to escape the hell they've created for themselves.

It could be the same for politicians, or anyone who desires power, money, glory, whatever.

Is such a scenario true? I have no real idea. But I think it's within the realm of possibility.

So, how does this relate to Pizzagate? Well, the idea is that places like Comet Ping Pong are merely covers for trafficking. These are the guys that procure the "goods" (shudder). They get paid well, plus, they know whose partaking and who isn't. That's a fair amount of power, plus it's a system that basically supports itself with mutual silence. If Mr. pizza goes down, he has the ability to spill all the goods. If the politicians go down, old Mr. Pizza either gets taken out, or goes down with them.

So, basically two way blackmail. Both parties are compromised, so either one coming forward means mutually assured destruction.

I take it you watch 'Ray Donovan'

 

[Laird]

Just curious, Jim, as to what relevance your posts about Donald Trump have to this thread. I haven't listened to the podcast, so there could be something I'm missing, but otherwise they seem... strangely out of place.

 

[Bucky]

Yeah, he definitely goes past my threshold on the alien stuff . . . But it's entertaining. And I don't buy any "he's a fraud" stuff. He seems very in earnest to me, even if I think, like with the alien stuff, that it's completely crazy. Personally I'm not anti or super pro Alex Jones, but I almost never listen to him either.

Agreed. I think he'd be better off doing his researching and reporting which he's very good at (e.g. his Bohemian Grove infiltration).
The speculative parts where he "connects the dots" are usually more harmful than useful, imho. It's just an incoherent rant that wouldn't work even for a sci-fi 'B' movie.
Plus, he's offering plenty of material for his critics to paint him as a total nutcase.