rigorousintuition.ca

Don't post un-sourced blind links, please, yathrib. Something to hide?

Conspiracy... or Coincidence? You be the judge...


Webpages Linked To Pizzeria Shooting Go Dark Even As Prosecution Moves Forward

norton ash » 15 Dec 2016 17:25 wrote:Don't post un-sourced blind links, please, yathrib. Something to hide?

Apologies for any breach of netiquette. The assumption that I have something to hide is rather unwarranted and paranoid, though. And I don't really care about Sargon's reputation, he dealt with the topic sanely and rationally here.

I've always considered you to be a good person yathrib but I thought I should say something because Sargon is not very good at all.

The point to me is that all kinds of forces will appropriate the emotionally charged theme of Paedophilia for whatever their agenda is, be it good, bad and/or other. Case in point: "Pizzagate".

AD's link led me to a related NPR story, including this somewhat ironic sentence:

Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis told NPR that the entire theory is "an insanely complicated, made-up, fictional lie-based story" that people in the "reality based" community quickly dismissed as an "insane sort of joke."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... y-theories

I remember watching Alefantis using that phrase, and now NPR repeating it makes me think that these people have heard the phrase "reality based community" but aren't really aware of its origins. Because it refers to a gullible mainstream press who will eagerly study and report the phony "reality" staged by the Empire.

For those few here who may not know what I mean,

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

So what NPR is saying, inadvertantly but accurately, is that gullible mainstream reporters, who continually fall for fake scenaria cooked up by government and others, know better than to believe a, um er, fake scenario.

And the Empire can count on sloppy reporting to further muddy the waters. In the same article,

The man allegedly pointed the gun at a restaurant employee, who managed to escape, then fired the weapon multiple times inside the restaurant.

"Multiple times?" I've read that he fired zero shots, fired one shot, fired two shots, and fired "several" shots. Which is it? I'd expect to see videos showing the bullet holes in the restaurant. Has there been one mention of patching the supposed bullet holes?

Also, in mainstream summaries of 'pizzagate', the actual DNC and Podesta emails that ignited the story are seldom, if ever, even mentioned. Never once have I heard the NPR robots cite the emails in this context. Look away from those emails!


All that said, I'm now pretty well persuaded that the gist of pizzagate—the "code words" referring to child sex abuse and most "supporting" details—is, if you will, debunked. At the same time, what a clever way that would be to turn the public off to any claims of the existence of elite pedo groups. Project Willow has brought this up and I agree. However, I'm not done looking closely at John and Tony Podesta.

Great catch with "the reality-based community", Elvis. Great post all round. That kind of focused close reading has become too rare here recently. Boring details such as the number of bullets fired (if any), trivialities such as a complete lack of evidence for claims made by anonymous "sources"... damn few people seem bothered by such things.

Elvis wrote:Also, in mainstream summaries of 'pizzagate', the actual DNC and Podesta emails that ignited the story are seldom, if ever, even mentioned. Never once have I heard the NPR robots cite the emails in this context. Look away from those emails!

Exactly. It's all spectacle, it's a movie, and "the actual DNC and Podesta emails" are not part of the plot. Who's the director? Not you! You're not part of the reality-based community. The reality-based community has created a sex-horror-comedy for you to watch, not some earnest documentary about the machinations of plutocrats. If you keep questioning the plot you'll end up ejected from the theater.

It's good to see you back.

Elvis » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:46 pm wrote: All that said, I'm now pretty well persuaded that the gist of pizzagate—the "code words" referring to child sex abuse and most "supporting" details—is, if you will, debunked.

Gee, I must've missed that. Link?

yathrib » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:57 pm wrote:

norton ash » 15 Dec 2016 17:25 wrote:Don't post un-sourced blind links, please, yathrib. Something to hide?

Apologies for any breach of netiquette. The assumption that I have something to hide is rather unwarranted and paranoid, though. And I don't really care about Sargon's reputation, he dealt with the topic sanely and rationally here.

You didnt breach any netiquette and some people here requested media links the way you provided IIRC.

I find it astonishing the degree of subtle thought censorship and outgrouping that subtly happens at RI. I'm sorry you were subjected to some not so subtle manipulation there...
(I like you and think you are good butyou have been LISTENING TO A BAAAD PERSON... ")

As you said, Sargon dealt with the subject sanely and rationally. I watched it last night and thought it was excellent.

ALSO WORTH MENTIONING...
The last six minutes about the art of Kim Noble are very very upsetting.

SO8:

I find it astonishing the degree of subtle thought censorship and outgrouping that subtly happens at RI.

Subtle? Subtly?

coffin_dodger » Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:24 pm wrote:SO8:

I find it astonishing the degree of subtle thought censorship and outgrouping that subtly happens at RI.

Subtle? Subtly?

Maybe what makes it seem like it must be subtle is how little it gets addressed?

guruilla » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:43 pm wrote:

coffin_dodger » Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:24 pm wrote:SO8:

I find it astonishing the degree of subtle thought censorship and outgrouping that subtly happens at RI.

Subtle? Subtly?

Maybe what makes it seem like it must be subtle is how little it gets addressed?

Oh, here's the emo section. I know this is the perennial chestnut at RI, the thread that probably connects to every RI user, sniff, how when we all play conspiracy dodge ball sometimes people get picked last, get beamed in their glasses, how when Jeff was the PE coach he seemed to take a special shine to me, but now, double sniff, it just seems like people don't agree with my blazing fourth hand analysis of quasi-conspiracy-news-clues.

"Subtle thought censorship". What the cluck does that even mean? Do we have mentalists who jedi mind trick users before and after they post? No, we do not. People are free to post all kinds of insane and inane posts, and they do. Hugh (for noobs: the most ideologically divisive long running RI member eva) thought he was persecuted at RI, and he was because his theories were deemed bat-shit crazy by 3 out of 4 bat shit crazy conspiracy theorists. But 1 out of 4 bat shit crazy conspiracy theorists idolized the man, jeebus they even started using his method, like Amway salesmen. People tried to openly, unsubtly censor his thoughts to no avail. If the board can tolerate a Hugh for as long as it did, then it can tolerate a lot. Subtle thought censorship, that's like a English teacher watching you write and grimacing when you write down certain words. Do we have RI proctors on site when people are posting now?

"Outgrouping" What prestige, benefits, hierarchy, perks are being distributed unfairly? Is there a big and little table at RI? The most powerful job at RI is probably also the most thankless and annoying. Being a mod here is like being sheriff in a town where everyone is the town drunk. People are free to post, and people are free to agree or disagree with one posts. If cells and cliques develop, well that happens everywhere, and I'd say most dissolve and reassemble per topic and even per page here. Few peoples crazy is compatible with other peoples crazy for very long.

How little it gets addressed? It gets addressed nearly every page. Again, it is the subtopic of most threads and pages. Everyone here is a poor unfortunate soul whose intentions are good.

guruilla » Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:30 pm wrote:

Elvis » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:46 pm wrote: All that said, I'm now pretty well persuaded that the gist of pizzagate—the "code words" referring to child sex abuse and most "supporting" details—is, if you will, debunked.

Gee, I must've missed that. Link?

I've tried very hard to step back and objectively look at the elements. It's all in three or four threads here on the forum, and in the Podesta emails themselves. After going through the emails, I just do not see "pizza" as a code word (with the possible exception of a couple of references to illicit drugs; I'd be surprised if the Podestas didn't indulge in something.

I'm satisfied there's no basement in CPP.

The artist who did the weird murals has expained (and suffered) quite a bit.

We have no idea of the context behind the little girl with her hands masking-taped to a table (except that Alefantis said it was his niece), but to me it's not at all out of the realm of play for a child that age; she looks like she's having fun.

The pedo symbols in a neighboring pizza joint's sign? Pizza slices are triangular, and if you're an artist being paid to make a sign for pizza business, you're probably gonna draw pizza slices with some abstract daubs for toppings.

Also consider, frankly, the initial sources of the 'theory', very motivated to make the Democratic players look as bad as possible.

What else? So much was conflated that when studied closely, doesn't pan out, not to me anyway.

None of that means I don't regard the Podestas brothers with contempt, just from looking at the public record. Questions remain, and I'm not satisfied that Tony Podesta's taste in art doesn't reflect something horrible.

If the Podestas themselves are not directly involved in child trafficking (and I don't rule that out), I feel rather certain—just based on what we know about the interstices of power and pedophilia—that trafficking lurks very close to their circles.

Another question that bothers me is why would GQ name Alefantis as the 49th most influential (not "most powerful" as so many have rephrased it)? His Democratic fundraisers, connections to movers like Brock and others could explain it. But 49th in all of Washington D.C.?

The good part if all this to me is, it made me much more aware of the murky power relationships among the big-money foundations & think-tanks (CAP e.g.), lobbying, staffing administrations, etc.

But alas I'd say PG has been a net "lose" for the broad effort to unravel elite pedophile networks.

I give you major props, Guruilla, for delving as deeply as you have and laying out your findings here. If you have a good "but what about—?" that I've missed, then I'm completely open to tempering my view. (Do I admit?—I wanted it all to be true).

Elvis » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:01 pm wrote:Another question that bothers me is why would GQ name Alefantis as the 49th most influential (not "most powerful" as so many have rephrased it)?

Would it surprise you to discover that Alefantis is not the only restauranteur on the GQ list? Also: GQ? Since when does anyone accept their reportage as important?

barracuda » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:12 pm wrote:

Elvis » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:01 pm wrote:Another question that bothers me is why would GQ name Alefantis as the 49th most influential (not "most powerful" as so many have rephrased it)?

Would it surprise you to discover that Alefantis is not the only restauranteur on the GQ list? Also: GQ? Since when does anyone accept their reportage as important?

I don't even consider GQ, really, but it's just odd to have restauranteurs on such a list with members of Congress, White House & State Dept. officials, high-rolling lobbyists, Karl Rove, etc. (Why is a baseball player on the list?)

Oh, and I see that GQ did say "most powerful" (I hadn't looked at GQ's page about it). That just makes it odder.

Why did GQ pick Alefantis? Demographics. Why else?