What's Happening? It? (TRIGGERS UPON TRIGGERS)

[Joe Hillshoist]

Speaking of evidence:

That the significance of Pizzagate is still in question at a board of this sort is mind-boggling in and of itself. Sure, a lot of the evidence is circumstantial and there isn't yet any proof of children being victimized (unless you consider sick jokes victimization, which I would); but that's irrelevant in terms of whether what evidence there is so far is worth examining with an eye to investigating further.

Yep.

So "pizzagate" is accusing people of raping and eating children but has no proof of children being victimized.

It makes a mockery of this board and of real victims of actual, real organised networks of pedophiles that someone would treat this like their own personal jesus complex, save the world crusade. Furthermore it discredits any potential further actual investigation into potentially real crimes by the people you are targeting without any proof of children being victimized.

You are poisoning the well.

If i was interested in covering up this sort of shit and making it harder to deal with in court or expose then people like you would be my first targets. I'd be using you to muddy the waters from day one.

To paraphrase that well known kiddie fiddler RAW:

Whenever i start believing my own bullshit I try and stop myself and ask "Whose useful idiot am i being right now."

[Joe Hillshoist]

cantankerous

Word of the day.

[dada]

I don't know a damn thing about Game of Thrones. So for me, the hokey-pokey must remain as what it's all about.

Comment of the day.

Yeah, it's funny, I was going to add "And some people will have no idea about game of thrones, so they won't be persuaded or resonate either way," but figured I would be belaboring the point, and my rant was running long already.

So of course that was the first thing that came up after I posted.

cheers to the comment of the day.

[Joe Hillshoist]

https://forestgreenfeminism.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/well-hell-the-2016-election-part-2/


Have we admitted to ourselves the likely increase in violence against women and girls as an outcome of the 2016 election?

That is exactly what happened in Australia after Tony Abbot led the Liberal party opposition against our first female PM - Julia Gillard. Specifically he did it in a way that promoted and tacitly supported violence against women with a wink and a nod and the odd dog whistle. Abbott beat Gillard in the 2013 federal election. He is a bit like Trump - Trump kind of copied his campaigning a bit - at least the targeting of vulnerable people.

Family violence crime figures will continue to rise, say support services

Out of the shadows: the rise of domestic violence in Australia

Violence against women: WA figures reveal increase in female assault victims

Violence against women on rise

etc etc

[Blue]

By jove I think you've got it!

Speaking of evidence:

That the significance of Pizzagate is still in question at a board of this sort is mind-boggling in and of itself. Sure, a lot of the evidence is circumstantial and there isn't yet any proof of children being victimized (unless you consider sick jokes victimization, which I would); but that's irrelevant in terms of whether what evidence there is so far is worth examining with an eye to investigating further.

You are poisoning the well.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I think you'll find its DMT and mushroom juice not poison.

[Harvey]

Theories, just theories. Take em or leave em:

Wombat – Breitbart appears to be be projecting his loathing, true enough, not necessarily because he was in bed with children but because the edifice he was wedded to surely is. The truth he couldn't allow himself to see but kept trying to alert himself to? Anyway, doesn't mean he didn't make the occasional accurate poke.

Essentially it feels like he's parroting the same strategic accusations he'd been hearing around him. (Accuse them first of your weak spot.) Wearing the clothes, but only dimly aware that rotten funk they came with was a core feature.

Heaven Swann – I could agree with you entirely on porn, although the historical evidence that many other cultures and cultural artefacts got there long before the printed and even the painted page should at the very least give you pause for wider view. Yes, the male gaze is present even without the male. A bit like the smile of the Cheshire cat.

Have you ever heard of the Roman Catholic Church? They been going long? It's built into the fabric of the mythos. Women are to be revered and feared, perhaps even listened to, but certainly never, ever allowed to be in charge. That's only one of the reasons to consolidate most of the archetypes under one roof. Even the Romans had female archetypes with agency, but not like the Greeks had, and not remotely like the Celts who had real living women with agency, and certainly not like the Egyptians, and so on, but anyway.

Seriously, look at how many women Hillary actually killed with the choices she actually made. Consider how many she widowed. I don't think that was indirect emancipation, feminism by the back door. Maybe I'm wrong.

Consider how many female children of those same women she delivered into the most brutal hell on earth. Along with all of her predecessors. She was busy engineering other cultures yes, but women's lot was never a factor. Especially when we divorce what she says and her machinery tells us from what she actually did. She was making omelette simply to break the eggs. She is a brutal ideologue. And I despise Trump every bit as much for similar reasons.

If your rhetoric isn't concerned with all of those individual women currently in the hell she helped to build, then why should it be trusted any more when it comes to women you actually do care about?

Jerky – You're a team player. I mean it sincerely. Good and bad.

For instance, you see paedophilia as symptomatic of Republicans, correctly enough, without ever once asking one of the most interesting questions. For that you'd have to step well back from the field.

What is it for? Culturally I mean. It's a lasting culture artefact I'm sure you'll agree. I know this may come as a shock, but Republicans are an American phenomenon. Paedophilia is not. Whatever else, it is very much a power phenomenon.

Yes it's useful for creating sociopaths, but many things are. Yes it's also useful for blackmail, like other things. It's useful for creating deep conflict, guilt and shame. It's also enjoyable from the perspective of one such former abused. A perverse right of passage, a gift from that point of view. “I'm going to make you just like me, you'll thank me later.”

Perhaps it's also useful as a tool for creating reality itself. Subjective reality.

Have you ever wondered why messengers of God are almost always depicted as children? Perhaps because they are really messengers from the future, not ours, theirs. Perhaps it's their future, their dreaming which is in need of diversion by us in the here and now, I mean, we've got bills to pay, resources to claim, glory to win. How else do you pawn them off with something which equates to hell when it could easily be closer to heaven? By stealing their dreams. Or more precisely, by creating their dreams, with a final, brutal and shocking interruption they could never imagine for themselves. The gentle grace of the messengers moves us with love, only something very nasty indeed will turn them into foot soldiers who move is with superior force. And a gun. The loss of innocence will not do, they have to be force-ably remade in the image of the powerful. Fine argument is all very well, but you can't mass produce that easily. Think of it as usurping one kind of family to replace it with a new one. A bit like the army does. Or politics. Or even sport. Alienation par excellence.

With all of that in mind, you don't seem to see paedophilia as symptomatic of power itself as perhaps you might. Fair enough. And yet we see the Democrats stand revealed as Republicans with a smiley. Fascism today is a smiley stamped across the human face, forever. But hey, once that mask slips, back to the old school for a refresher, enter the other half the equation, Trump, Bush, whoever.

The last laugh? You call us fascists. Projection...

If Democrats struggle to wear the clothes, it's because at heart, they don't really understand brutality enough to do it well. Brutality has a function, one we seldom need, but we are trained to wear it because we've all forgotten our history, Europeans and former Europeans. There are better ways, we knew it once but more brutal cultures convinced us their story was ours.

Like abused children, we carry their torch.

[guruilla]

There's obviously some confusion, or disagreement, about what this board (or thread) is for, not to mention what constitutes serious investigation.

Some people (JH, Jerky) want the thread to be more of a "social" kind of thing, where they get to vent their dislike of people they don't like and mock them or smugly correct them for their mistaken ideas about evidence and the like, rather than, I dunno, focusing on the evidence and ignoring anything they think isn't worth following up? If they were genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of Pizzagate, that's what they'd be doing.

The data I provided about Alefantis possibly lying about his basement, JH made a fair point that it's less than damning, but then couldn't resist the opportunity for accusations and one-up-man-ship (sigh). So now I'm a well poisoner because I'm not proceeding as if I was in a court of law (or sufficiently afraid of ending up in one), by daring to look at evidence of child abuse without having any proof that anyone has actually been victimized.

Maybe someone can explain to Joe that, if a killer buries the bodies, they can be quite hard to find, so that leaves looking for clues or incriminating behavior. Maybe eventually bodies will turn up; but if your criteria for investigating a murder is having a body, then it's a safe bet they never will.

This sort of "logic" is at play in Orthodox Jewish Communities (see Michael Lesher), with their ruling against reporting child sexual abuse without strong evidence that the reports are true. This prevents evidence from being found, of course, since without the reports, no one knows where to look. Convenient, isn't it?

JH (like Peter Levenda, and countless other sophists these days) seems happy to apply this sort of "rigorous" journalistic standard in the interests of preventing a "witch hunt," i.e., anyone looking too closely at circumstantial evidence, or daring to speculate based on anything less than a smoking gun or a disinterred corpse.

It's either disconnected from reality or disingenuous, I don't know which. If evidence is bad, there's no real harm in sharing it because it will only lead to a dead end anyway (crying "witch hunt" when it's one or two guys and not a pitch fork in sight is pretty silly). I posted the basement thing as another possibly anomalous (hence significant) fact for the record, not to prove my case (I also posted Alefantis' NPR denials, was that supposed to support my case too?). But RI seems to be more a bunch of guys measuring their ding-dongs than anything else these days.

I still don't get why people who think Pizzagate's a waste of time care if other people are researching it or not; I know enough to stay away from the threads I consider time-wasters, guess what, because I don't want to waste my time! It's the same reason I filter out so many posters here, because I know that whenever they ever respond to me, it will only be to try and drag me through the muck or to discredit me on the board, either for their own satisfaction or to signal to others not to take me seriously, never to sincerely engage any points I might be trying to make. There are only so many hours in a day, guys. Thriving on indignation & disagreement is a great boost for a weak ego, but that's about it.

Meanwhile, Pizzagate is now getting called an "Alt-Nazi Conspiracy Theory," and as far as I can tell this is the principal objection people have to it, and the primary non-argument they present against it. Frikkin' brilliant! And effective. Pizzagate has been debunked as a right-wing fake news c-theory because it's based on wild speculations and made up shit, and it's been debunked as being based on wild speculations and made up shit because, yep, it's a right-wing fake news c-theory! I guess Joe is right: Nothing to see here but poisons in a well.

Yet despite this, from what I can tell, there are plenty of researchers taking Pizzagate seriously (Chris Knowles, Gordon White) who are generally respected and who are not known to have any sympathies for right-wing philosophies or agendas, or for rank gullibility, either. & let's not forget the fact that all of the "circumstantial" evidence that has come up around Comet Pizza and James Alefantis is the result of Wikileaks emails (confirmed as real). That this was probably intentional on the part of whoever leaked them, & that those same people could have followed up by seeding the Internet with early leads, via 4chan, reddit, etc, seems fairly obvious once stated, but it's worth stating anyway since it gives a more credible context for that research, research which some people at RI are so eager to dismiss and deride.

So if the first line of defense is that the emails don't mean anything outside of people's projections, the second line of defense contradicts that, being that their meaning is deliberately contrived as subtle propaganda to influence the election, etc. So if people here want to argue that Pizzagate is all a right-wing (or Russian, or whoever the fuck) plot to trick serious researchers into poisoning the well and blackening the names of the Clintons & the Podestas and other spotless Democrats, then where's their evidence? They can't just keep bleeting on about how there's no evidence for Pizzagate while ignoring the evidence being presented. That's not research; it's not even discussion; it's punditry.

I saw today that the blogger annirlfan is covering Pizzagate with the POV (as far as I can tell, I only skimmed it) that the whole thing was created by Trump supporters to distract from Trump's involvement in child trafficking and smear his competition. See here: http://aanirfan.blogspot.ca/2016/11/piz ... mails.html OK, at least they aren't just dismissing the evidence.

People at RI should like it anyway, since it might help confirm the fond illusion:

For instance, you see paedophilia as symptomatic of Republicans, correctly enough

Lastly, another bit of "non-evidence" (this one I found via Red Ice radio and then Alex Jones, so of course it's part of the alt-right plot so there's nothing to worry about):

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Tamera Luzzatto <tluzzatto@pewtrusts.org>
> wrote:
>
> With enormous gratitude to Advance Man Extraordinaire Haber, I am popping
> up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to
> the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes:
> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be
> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and
> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in
> that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun,
> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever
> attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so
> we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).
>
>
>
> I am ccing Trudy to repeat the invite, and sending pining
> wishes-you-could-come to Rima, John P, and Laurie & Chris.
>
>
>
> Con amore, Mrs. Farmer L
>
>

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/49435

Having shared that, I can confidently sit back and wait for the scornful remarks about how this is just a mom talking abut her kids & using jokey language, or whatever. What I can also be confident about is that no one will follow it up or try to find out a bit more about the context, the players involved, and ascertain if there might be anything sinister about this, or not. That's clearly not what RI is about, if it ever was.

Hell, if Jerky is a team player, I just wound up at the wrong party without the password.





I think that means it's time for me to leave, this thread at least. Been nice knowing ... some of you.

[Harvey]

For instance, you see paedophilia as symptomatic of Republicans, correctly enough

Quote me out of context anytime.

Hell, if Jerky is a team player, I just wound up at the wrong party without the password.

English humour.

[mentalgongfu2]

Maybe eventually bodies will turn up; but if your criteria for investigating a murder is having a body, then it's a safe bet they never will.

Pretty sure that's how most murder investigations start. If not with a body, then a missing persons report that might lead to a body. Until which point it is an investigation into a missing person, not a murder investigation.

I guess in your investigative style we assume missing people and/or bodies exist, and rather than go looking for them, we immediately begin compiling a list of suspects.

[Plutonia]

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1448645

That right there ^^^^ is a thread where people are examining claims made in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaM3GIEX0yU that:

1. Virginia has 2nd highest number of reported missing Children (1st California), most of missing Children come from 3 counties close to DC.
2. There is a HUGH surging of missing Children in last few months, suspect correlated with Halloween. (Someone comments below, most reported missing Children maybe found within days, so we need verify status of these statistics.)
3. Lack [of] pictures of many missing Children in Virginia database, this only happens in Virginia.

Hmmm ... is this is true, I wonder?

Towards an answer, earlier today:

[–] exposethecriminals 1 points (+1|-0) 6 hours ago

Go to http://www.missingkids.com/search

Missing from: choose state

Missing date: put in a date range for when a child was reported missing

Click Submit

As of today, for the date range 11/29/15 - 11/29/16, there are 303 children missing in Virginia, that were first reported missing during that one-year time period.

Compared with 25 from last year, between 11/29/14-11/29/15

Yesterday as I was working on that time frame, the Virginia number climbed from 293 to 308. Today it is at 303 for that time period so that is a slight improvement.

The researcher from the YouTube video might have gotten his data by linking to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's website (http://www.missingkids.com) through the Virginia State Police website. That is a different data set than I used. I think it lists all adults and children missing in Virginia, whether reported this year or in prior years. When he said so many were reported missing this year, I decided to just check this year against prior years, and it is unbelievably different.

[–] stuartangel11 6 points (+6|-0) 13 hours ago

Yea its gross me and the two ladies ive been working with are putting together a map today of where exactly these kids were taken from and the proximity to DC its crazy they all are within 175 miles of DC and its mostly Black and Hispanic children

pizzaparallel 2 points (+2|-0) 9 hours ago
Missing Children By State (as of 11/30/2016 via missingkids.com)

AL - 33
AK - 14
AZ - 120
AR - 24
CA – 588 (Cases in 2016: 151; 2015: 74; 2014: 29; 2013: 17)
CO - 68
CT - 23
(DC) – 6 (Cases in 2016: 2)
DE - 8
FL – 354 (Cases in 2016: 159; Cases in 2015: 19; Cases in 2014: 17; Cases from 2013: 7)
GA - 89
HI - 15
ID - 18
IL - 132
IN - 59
IA - 9
KS - 28
LA - 33
ME - 6
MD – 108 (Cases in 2016: 28)
MA - 113
MI - 91
MN - 36
MS - 24
MO - 59
MT - 8
NE - 31
NV - 54
NH - 12
NJ - 55
NM - 37
NY – 194 (Cases in 2016: 64; Cases in 2015: 24; 2014: 1; 2013: 5)
NC - 67
ND - 7
OH - 120
OK - 88
OR - 54
PA - 109
RI - 2
SC - 45
SD - 2
TN - 70
TX – 329 (Cases in 2016: 140; Cases in 2015: 23; Cases in 2014: 4; 2013: 3)
UT - 17
VT - 6

VA – 398 (Cases in 2016: 297; Cases from 2015: 30; Cases from 2014: 12; Cases from 2013: 7)

WA - 90
WV - 4
WI - 33
WY - 7

The number of kids missing in Virginia from 9/1/2016 - 11/30/2016 = 228 228/297 = 77%
The number of kids missing in Virginia from 9/1/2015 - 11/30/2015 = 15 15/30 = 50%
The number of kids missing in Virginia from 9/1/2014 - 11/30/2015 = 3 3/12 = 25%

Doesn't look good.

[emphasis mine]

[Nordic]

Well here's one actual missing child to consider.




Also who's keeping track of the Haitian children?

[slomo]

Re: Plutonia's post, I had seen that same Voat thread, but was reluctant to bring it up. Note that the big numbers come from states that have large populations, so if one was going to argue that there are "hot spots", one would have to adjust for population size. Of course, it doesn't detract from the overall message that there are, in fact, a number of missing children.

What is the methodology? Are cases where the child is found to have been kidnapped by another family member (e.g. an estranged parent) excluded?

[slomo]

I was trying to stay away from this toxic thread, but what the hell.

There was a Voat thread that linked to Urban Dictionary via Wayback machine (prior to 2015), showing that "ping pong" has most definitely been used to refer to a sex act, long before PG.

In another Voat thread an Australian said that he recognized one of the adults depicted in an Instagram photo, assumed to be part of JA's club (from the Instagram comments) is actually a convicted Aussie perp, a soccer player nabbed in the US trying to score with a 6-year-old. A graphic with side-by-side pics of the two faces seems very convincing.

http://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1450635

Side note: I do remember the photo of the two guys in shorts being part of the corpus taken from JA's instagram, so it is not a new addition to the data set.

All of this evidence is circumstantial, but there sure is a lot of it. I do realize there is the potential for lots of confirmation bias here. I still think this could be a psy-op built on top of real data, but data that is circumstantial enough so that many people (including authorities) can safely ignore.

[slomo]

However, I do find it ironic that an RI member who, on another thread, called a man a "rapist" solely because he had consensual sex with an adult woman 20+ years his junior* would dismiss all of these curious data points as simply an attempt to discredit a female presidential candidate just because she is a woman**. Talk about confirmation bias! Radical feminism is nothing but.

* Yes, the man in question was creepy, for many reasons other the fact that he married a woman much younger than he. Creepy he is. "Rapist", by the legal definition (or any reasonable moral definition) he was not, in that particular instance.
** Yes, I understand that some of PG is politically motivated.