Joe Hillshoist » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:32 pm wrote: I know dodgy people and have no doubts some of them would not draw the line at trafficking kids, (as some of you might know I helped a friend escape one of those organised criminal networks decades ago now and it got scary/sketchy at times,) but i'm not gonna murder them over it when I have no proof and a young family.) Those links only really start to emerge the further you get away from the specifics of pizzagate.
Isn't that because there aren't any records of closed-door activities within Comet Ping Pong, any more than there are records of what goes on in this or that Masonic Lodge or this or that child-care home? The records that we have of CPP-related activities (besides, you know, serving pizza & playing ping pong) are mostly via creepy pics on Instagram accounts, performance videos filmed there complete with pedo-jokes, and highly suggestive, borderline pornographic, advertising artwork, i.e., all the stuff that started this whole "Pizzagate" furor to begin with. Is all that sufficient cause to make accusations? That depends of what. Are they sufficient cause to look further into CPP? Definitively, yes. (I trust no one here would deny that?)
This circumstantial,
somewhat self-incriminating evidence has mostly not been addressed by the people insisting
there is nothing to Pizzagate, except to dismiss it with arguments like, "It's art and to cite art as evidence is a dangerous game." Yeah? And? It's
all a dangerous game. What's anyone's explanations for the baby coffins, kill room jokes, inappropriate pictures of kids? There hasn't been one, or if there has I missed it, nothing besides: "It doesn't prove anything!" This is not an explanation, it's a dismissal. But this stuff does prove
something, it proves that CPP-affiliated people like making jokes about and sly references to murder, child porn, kinky sex, etc, and that they have a habit of associating Pizza with the same, whether as part of some weird advertising strategy or . . something else, related to maps and handkerchiefs . . . (more evidence which also hasn't really been examined here)
This constant refrain of "That doesn't prove anything!" is not the same (tho it's been used the same way) as "That isn't sufficient cause for suspicion or for further inquiry," I suppose because, if stated plainly, I doubt anyone here could really argue that; especially not when, if we
do follow the money from CPP and Alefantis via Brock, et. al, it takes no time at all to find ourselves in a world of child trafficking in which countless groups and individuals (including Alefantis) are linked together. But somehow, that's irrelevant because
we don't have proof of children being abused at CPP. (As a side point, CPP being a hang-out for child traffickers and abusers is
not the same as its being a location for these same crimes, because the two aren't mutually inclusive. It could be that it's a red herring to think the place is actually the location for crimes, and that it's only a front for laundering child trafficking profits where the gang hang out and do fund-raisers and have pedo-friendly parties. These are two different things. To Luther's weird point about no kids disappearing there, it seems more likely to me that CPP, if kids
were being abused there, is a place where trafficked kids are
brought, not where they are abducted.)
Meanwhile, because of this constant wall of denial that seems ideology-based more than logic-based, there has been very little headway made at this thread, IMO, and instead we've had mud-slinging, snark, and strangely limp arguments like:
Luther Blissett » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:30 am wrote:Note: Alefantis was named one of D.C. "top 50 most powerful people" in one year in one single publication, GQ. Every large city has multiple publications producing these lists every year. It is essentially meaningless.
When was the last time you were listed as among 50 most powerful people in the capital of most powerful nation in the world, Luther? Was that meaningless too? How about the fact that, when a national mag names someone as powerful,
they become more powerful? & how about JA making
repeat visits to the Whitehouse? Is that essentially meaningless too?
These sorts of "arguments" seem sourced in something other than a desire to exonerate Alefantis (which in itself would be weird), but even if they are that, I don't understand the drive to "protect" possibly "innocent" people from an "investigation" that's occurring (barely) on an obscure (and misleadingly titled) thread at an out of the way forum that will have no legal repercussions for anyone, anywhere. Are we supposed to worry now that we might inspire another impressionable conspiracy lover to pick up a gun and go nut job? & if so, how is that concern supposed to weigh against the possibility of hundreds of thousands of children being trafficked, raped, tortured, and killed?
Is it supposed to? So let's weight them then.
The argument against discussing Pizzagate because it discredits or detracts from investigating "actual" pedo-rings, etc, is equally nonsensical, IMO, since there has been
a continuous effort to look at these other more established groups, perps, and cases, both as possibly connecting to CPP, and as the deeper background and context
for it. The excellent Lori Hanrahan material Plutonia posted is going viral now
because of Pizzagate. How's that for a distraction?
Last up, and to address & add to a point Plutonia made: the various ostensible child-protection, anti-trafficking agencies that are linked to the Clinton Foundation, and the people involved with them (including HC herself), if they really care about the reality of child-trafficking, why are none of them speaking about it? Why aren't they using Pizzagate as an opportunity to draw attention to this reality & the great work they are doing? Instead of, "See, this proves how dangerous fake news is and how many insane theories are out there about high-level pedophilia!" why not say, "Pizzagate is an unfortunate incident, but there really
is a problem with child trafficking and
we need to look at it now"?
They're not saying this, not a single one of them. Why not?
Because they don't care.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.