Printable View
scan through the thread... pizzagate and pedogate have merged quite many pages ago.
=====================
Pope Francis offers support to Cardinal George Pell over historic child sex offence charges - as insider claims Australia's most senior Catholic will NOT return to the Vatican
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-charges.html
Pretty impressive feat, Jordan/Destroy Illusion having started his channel in Feb '17; with nearly all vids of his youthful looking self playing professor in front of his whiteboard; & he just cracked 30K sub's. :o I hate to be a stick in the mud if his channel growth is all organic, but I have heard of "buying subs", though I know nothing more of the details about this; IE is this a commercial service like those "social media astroturfing" services? Also, do they commit to opening/watching/liking/etc his vids, puffing up the view counts? Or they stop at sub'ing? His view counts are also quite high, sometimes exceeding his subs #.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachsie
This vid indicates he's quite ambitious, envisioning a member's website, and his own health retreat ~3 years down the road. So, guessing he's upper middle class, having had the interest & funds & leisure time to get up to speed on the breadth of topics he discusses; so I could imagine him justifying throwing some $ at "priming his YT channel pump" so as not to have to wait around 1++ years to get that kind of subs organically. 3-4 weeks ago, he scored an interview with "Ex-CIA" Robert D. Steele, who many twoofers incl myself, have suspicions about!
But hey if his channel's success is all honest, congrats to Jordan. :)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JMN2uWdknac/h...lo8IfYK4IyBORw 16:43
30K Subs. Here's The Plan.
- 11,134 views
- 2 days ago
Schitzopath Nathan Stolpman, who I know I was going to ignore but alas it's too tabloid during this slow news time; his sub's are virtually unchanged since ~1.5 weeks ago (28,264 now) when his Webb/Acton/Defango publicity stunt was climaxing. Seaman put up a 47 min vid dedicated to bashing Nate & crowd-attacking him... but me fears Seaman 'took the bait' by giving Nate any notoriety at all.
Titus F has several recent live streams & an interview with UK's Echo Truths; most I haven't watched; I'll just link to his channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDH...nN1LVjQ/videos
Random Ryan:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8wtHdIVEKV0/h...SAMzju4RC3bV7g 9:19
Pedogate/Pizzagate logical conclusion of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
- 484 views
- 6 hours ago
Almost every P*Gate vlogger I follow has something up about the Vatican finance dude Pell and his pedo indictment; tip of the Vatican PedoGate iceberg. :rolleyes:
Common Sense, on Pope standing by the pedo finance cardinal:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aZ7Bk5ZazgQ/h...0z82vs5_CUMRig 4:01
The Pope Is Defending the Undefendable-Shame
- 2,190 views
- 8 hours ago
Common Sense again; hope we can expect this AU 60 Minutes segment to appear on YT, assuming it's really brand new. Recall they did at least one pedo segment before, seems it focused on some Catholic boys' boarding school:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dO9vYHIMvu8/h...kLF8MFnFr8uWAA 4:25
Australia's 60 Minutes Are Reporting On VIP Networks Related to Heinous Criminality
- 3,879 views
- 1 day ago
"The Outer Light" channel has some interesting vids up lately, incl a couple on the creepy YT mickey mouse/spiderman cartoons, which Tim Kelly recently did a show on with guest Andy Nowicki.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnr...qo3QW-Q/videos
"
Almost every P*Gate vlogger I follow has something up about the Vatican finance dude Pell and his pedo indictment; tip of the Vatican PedoGate iceberg.
Common Sense, on Pope standing by the pedo finance cardinal:"
Was going to post on this a couple a days ago but when I listened to one of the recent videos it seems the indictment stems from a 40 year ago incident of two boys, now grown men, who claimed Pell touched them inappropriately or the story went something like that. So why wait 40 years. The feeding frenzy of indictments on Catholic clergy happened about 10 years ago so these two fellas should have gotten in on the action back then. So this leads me to believe this indictment is part of some bigger agenda and serves some higher purpose as to its timing now.
The whole Catholic pedo thing has been infiltrated by the Deep State operatives and Cass Sunstein droppings for psychological operations and strategic perception management. Catholic clergy don't have a monopoly on this institutionalized mortal sin . Here is a post on this subject by a Catholic on Fitzpatrick's site where Michael Hoffman of revisionisthistory.org, another Catholic, whatever that means these days, is being negatively criticized.
Fitzpatrick Informer <comment-reply@wordpress.com>
Jun 29 at 9:53 PM
To
archiek1@prodigy.net
Message body
Timothy Fitzpatrick posted: "A refutation of Michael Hoffman II By Jude Duffy June 29, 2017 Anno Domini Michael Hoffman II says my comments about him posted on an article published on Henry Makow's site are calculated to harm his “reputation as a historian”. This is provably fal"
Respond to this post by replying above this line
New post on Fitzpatrick Informer
"
Media anti-Catholic narratives with an endless shelf life
by Timothy Fitzpatrick
A refutation of Michael Hoffman II
By Jude Duffy
June 29, 2017 Anno Domini
Michael Hoffman II says my comments about him posted on an article published on Henry Makow's site are calculated to harm his “reputation as a historian”. This is provably false. Far from being “calculated”, my comments were originally a private reply to a woman who wrote to Henry taking issue with my passing reference, in another Makow piece, to Mr. Hoffman as anti-Catholic. This woman challenged me to substantiate my description of Mr. Hoffman and I did so. Henry asked me if he could publish this private reply on his site, and I agreed. So, no calculation.
However, since Mr Hoffman raises the subject, if he wishes to rebut slurs, real or imagined, on his historiographical credibility, no one is stopping him presenting all his formal academic qualifications in this discipline.
Incidentally, my original passing comment about Hoffman (and other alternative media types such as David Icke) alluded to their penchant for uncritically recycling any and all negative narratives the corporate media serve up about the Catholic Church—even though they urge their followers to treat the same media's narratives about most other issues with contempt. Hoffman in his counter-attack has made no effort to refute this criticism.
Nor has he addressed my point about why he condones the media's unrelenting efforts to portray clerical sexual abuse of minors as a uniquely Catholic crime. This co-ordinated hate campaign is one of the great media scandals of our time (as some Protestants and even some atheists have acknowledged), yet Hoffman promotes it very enthusiastically in his writings.
Only a few days ago, an item appeared on British Sky News relating to Peter Ball—former Anglican bishop and close friend of the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles—who has been convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse of minors. The report stated that the former head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, had been ordered by the current Archbishop of Canterbuy, Justin Welby, to cut all formal ties with the Church of England, because of his role in covering up the crimes of Bishop Ball.
In addition to being the former head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Carey sits in the British House of Lords and is still a prominent figure in British public life, so this was by any standards a huge story. If it had related to a former Catholic bishop found guilty of sexual abuse, and a former head of the Catholic Church in England found to have covered up his crimes, it would have made front-page news, not just in the U.K. but also around the world. The ultra-Zionist New York Times would have devoted endless column inches to it, and the usual oligarch-funded and directed cultural Marxist groups would have staged noisy protests outside Westminster Catholic Cathedral.
Even the self-styled traditionalist Catholic movement would have jumped on the bandwagon, showering the corporate media with sycophantic garlands for "exposing the sickening corruption at the heart of the post-conciliar Church".
Yet not only was this story not the main headline on Sky News, it didn't even merit its own report from a religious affairs or legal affairs correspondent.
Furthermore, Sky News chose to downplay Peter Ball's crimes by referring to them as the 'abuse of young men', when the victims were in fact teenage boys. Over 80 per cent of the victims of Catholic clerics convicted of sexual abuse were in the same age range as Ball's victims (or the ones he has been convicted of - he has also been accused of abusing younger children). Yet the media invariably refer to Catholic clerical abuse of teenagers as 'paedophilia', 'child abuse', or the 'rape of children'.
Needless to say, and regardless of the culprit, there can be no question of minimising the horror of the crime of homosexual abuse of teenagers, but the anti-Catholic vendetta of the media is discernible even in the different language corporate presstitutes use to describe equivalent crimes—depending on the religious denomination of the perpetrator.
Underscoring this vendetta, the Daily Mail, a vile pornographic propaganda organ of the British-Masonic establishment, in its report on the Ball scandal, repeatedly referred to Bishop Ball as a 'priest', a term that in Britain usually denotes members of the Catholic clergy.
Mr. Hoffman of course never has anything to say about this whitewashing of the crimes of Protestant clergy, because, quite demonstrably, he shares the Zionist media's hatred of the Catholic Church.
He repeatedly insists it is only the post-Renaissance Church he objects to, but unless he is exceedingly dense, he must know that the Catholic Church has never held that her divinely guaranteed indefectibility would run out after a given period of history—quite the reverse. If the Church is not indefectible now, she has never been indefectible. And if she had never been indefectible, she would have been as much a fraud in the Middle Ages as she is now—according to Mr. Hoffman's logic. He really must choose.
Moreover, Mr. Hoffman once again refuses to answer the crucial question as to what religious authority he deems worthy of obedience in the here and now. Does he believe that in today's world every Christian must decide for himself on the great moral issues of our time? That is the definition of Protestantism—and liberalism
Hoffman challenges me to substantiate my claim that he admires Cromwell. This is extraordinary. In his writings he has repeatedly sought to downplay the Judaizing tendencies of Cromwell and the Puritans. Indeed, to read much of what he writes on this subject, one could be forgiven for assuming that the Jacobites had triumphed in the religious and political conflicts of 17th century Britain (see for example one of his most recent pieces on this subject 'The Great Divide' - May 2. 2017).
One doesn't have to be a fan of the Stuarts (I'm not) to recognise the utter absurdity of placing the blame for Britain's emergence as a usurious capitalist superpower on that dynasty—akin to blaming the Romanovs for the ills of the Soviet Union. Quite simply, Catholics were a defeated and persecuted minority in the days when usurious capitalism became the dominant economic system throughout the U.K. and its colonies.
If British Protestants had the aversion to usury that Hoffman attributes to them, they had ample opportunity to combat this vice from a position of enormous strength, as they held uncontested power in Britain and its possessions throughout the late 17th century, the 18th century, and the 19th century. As it was, usurious capitalism went from strength to strength in the era of Protestant hegemony.
The United Kingdom has never had a Catholic Prime Minister and hasn't had a Catholic monarch since the days of the Stuarts. The United States only got its first Catholic President in 1960, and he was only deemed a worthy candidate when he promised not to let his faith govern his political decisions.
And he got shot.
The incontestable fact is that Protestants were 'early adopters' of usurious capitalism. Many of the founders of the Bank of England were Huguenots—as was its first governor Sir John Houblon. Even in the predominantly Catholic countries of France and Italy, Protestants dominated usurious banking—something their religious descendants still acknowledge today.
The same applies, incidentally, to Freemasonry. Hoffman dismisses the many papal condemnations of Freemasonry as a smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the "Romanists", just as he dismisses papal condemnations of usury. On the other hand, he ignores the indisputable and very concrete links between the Protestant churches and Masonry, e.g., Anglican and Lutheran archbishops' and bishops' membership of the Freemasons.
So, in Hoffman's bizarre counter-intuitive form of historiography, binding papal encyclicals can be dismissed as charades, whereas irrefutable evidence of Masonic domination of Protestant churches is deemed irrelevant in assessing the merits of these denominations.
Hoffman doesn't appear to worry unduly either about Calvin's openly stated support for usury, Luther's admiration for occult alchemy, his proto-modernist attempts to edit the Bible to his own taste, and his exhortation to his followers to “sin boldly”.
Nor does Hoffman get around to explaining why, if the radical Protestants of past centuries were such upstanding folk, most mainline Protestant churches now support abortion, homosexuality, and why even most of the more conservative Protestant denominations endorse birth prevention and promote Israel First ultra-Zionism.
He largely ignores, too, the Protestant Anglo-Israelist origins of corrupt occult societies such as the Orange Order, Purple Arch, the Black Preceptory, Skull and Bones, and Scroll and Key—most of which flourished in the radical Protestant heartlands of northern Ireland, Scotland, New England, and the British colonies. Instead, he focuses all his moral outrage about the degeneracy of modern institutional Christianity on the Catholic Church.
For someone who takes such offence at criticism of his own stated views, Hoffman falsely attributes statements to his critics with reckless abandon. He says I claimed that usury "began" with Protestants. I would never say anything so absurd. Usury didn't begin with Protestants or "Romanists"; it has always existed. I did say that Hoffman has attempted to whitewash Protestantism's role in the rise of usury, and he has made no attempt to refute this charge.
Hoffman calls my speculation about the reasons for his admiration for Luther, Calvin, et al., “Freudian drivel”. Actually if I had to write the piece again, I'd leave out the last bit about Hoffman's possible motives for lionising Protestant leaders and Puritans—not because it's in any way far-fetched to speculate that he may have fallen prey to romantic hero-worship—a much more plausible hypothesis than his own outlandish claim that the popes were secretly promoting Freemasonry while pretending to condemn it. No, the reason I'd omit this final paragraph is because, with hindsight, I think it gives Hoffman too much credit, and may falsely imply a nuanced outlook on his part about religious matters, where no such nuance or balance exists. Regardless of his motives, of which I obviously have no certain knowledge, Hoffman's writings about the Church are quite simply the work of a crude anti-Catholic propagandist.
Incidentally, the only reason I even added the last bit is because Henry Makow, being a magnanimous sort of chap, asked me if I'd care to balance my criticisms of Hoffman with something positive. That was the context in which I wrote what I did about Hoffman's piece on Bing Crosby and Irving Berlin. However his views on the Old Crooner notwithstanding, Hoffman's anti-Catholic bigotry is beyond reasonable dispute in my view. "
Dachsie says...I personally like all these guys reporting about Catholic corruption but to me you have to pick a cut-off time in history when you are going to say that the pope ain't Catholic and therefore he ain't the pope. The cut-off time varies among all these Catholic truthers and some even think that outfit in Rome these days is the real deal. There have been several times in Church history where there was no pope for long periods. Now is one of those times.
^ long pre-PIZZA-gate, when I was however somewhat hip to "The Dinjooz and Their Lies", plus their Western mass-media monopoly; I concluded that their media was playing a deflection/misdirection/projection game wrt shaping which organized religion first came to the plebs' minds as closely linked to pedophilia. (((They))) chose the largest denomination within Christianity, aka RC-ism, with its "celibate clergy" and easily corruptible top-down management structure.
It came into focus one Easter Week, when I was watching the LOCAL evening news (with typical emphasis on LOCAL NEWS FIRST); and there at the top, either first or second story, was some obscure Catholic priest in Scotland who was getting pedo-busted. There was something very 'off' about this editorial choice of 'news' priorities.
Combine with the Talmud's pedo-friendly passages, and the occasional "good joo" speaking out against the child molestation inside their community only to be ruthlessly targeted, harmed & shunned; plus the "dinjoosh ritual blood sacrifice" history which I take to be very REAL, and the textbook dinjoosh MO of deflection/misdirection/projection... and there you have it.
Make no mistake, RC-ism has a systemic pedo problem; but pound for pound (per capita clergy) I'd guess the dinjooz are far worse. But where are they in average J6Ps' minds on the pedo question? Virtually non-existent. Clever tribe, (((they))) are!
Here is a pretty good article about
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/20...uction-of.html
the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita written in the early 1800s. Their main target was the R. Catholic Church.
Some call it the heresy of modernism that Pope Pius X wrote about as "the synthesis of all heresies."
Rubber yellow ducky is to PedoGate
as
Pizza is to PizzaGate
This is pedoGate not pizzagate....
a little research into the little yellow rubber duckies in several photos of Alex Soros, billionaire son of George.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...3011368859.jpg
Just one of the famous guests invited to Soros' 20,000sq ft mansion was Pussy Riot’s Nadya Tolokonnikova (left)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4lWa1BEXw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
________________
"Over the past eight months, more than 2,300 ducks have been discovered in 56 countries such as Australia, Peru, Japan, Nigeria, and India. The ducks are found in random places — on a cafe table in Berlin, inside an airport in Singapore, at Esther Island in the gulf of Alaska — each with a note attached that reads, “Hello. Please take me home. I was made with love just for you” and an invitation to visit The Little Yellow Duck Project to learn about the project’s mission: Raising awareness for organ and tissue donation. Although many have been uncertain as to who was behind the duckies, the women supporting the project never made their mission a secret.
STORY: Family Gives Away $100K to Deserving Family to Honor Daughter "
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mom-behin...979054942.html
______________
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...3011472153.jpg
_____
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...eUFeRDipnshbzm
http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51...I0Nw%3D%3D.2.c
The Outer Light
guy does excellent rundown on "the Russian narrative"
This has nothing to do with the main subject of this thread other than the main player in this scenario is Mr. PizzaGate himself, John Podesta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hNS9lK-hNE
Here we get to watch Pedoesto go into overdrive in Satan-assisted lying mode.
Pedoesto puts Bill and Hillary to shame when it comes to aggressive rapid-fire lying skills.
If anyone wants to observe what demonic possession looks like in action, this video is an interesting study.
I like the way The Outer Light commentator breaks out laughing at the absurdity of what Pedoesta and gang are trying to sell.
I personally did not see much evidence of Pedoesta squirming or appearing cornered and befuddled. He consented to this interview, taking place after he had the closed door congressional meeting and knowing full well the hardball questions he would be thrown, because Pedoesta has utmost confidence in his ability to lie well and defend himself effectively and fool most of the viewers, in other words, utmost confidence in the father of lies who is his god.
He sounded tough and strong to me like someone should if they are being attacked and they are really telling the truth. He had to resort to switching to his " depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" Bill Clinton word games when he witch-switched to a technical definition of "a Russian company."
But Fox News knows what they have to do to not go down the tube that CNN and others are in. Fox News is going to keep their ratings up by ostensibly being on the side of "true Americans." Like I always say, all of this is deja vu all over again. I used to think Fox News was the real deal in the early 2000s but no more.
What I thought was particularly good when commentator said Pedodesta is Dick Cheney in another suit.
Sometimes people remind you of animals.
I always thought Pedoesta looks like an anorexic turkey.
^ I was skipping through that Outer Light analysis of the Pedo-sta/Bartiromo interview earlier; it seems he just plays a thumbnail sized version. Here's full size,
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hQyr9qUuvTM/h...iMAAsEp7dd-GLg12:59
Pizzagate John Podesta and Maria Bartiromo Epic Fight Over Hillary and Russia Ties.
Dboy Lee
- 14 hours ago
- 1 view
John Podesta and Maria Bartiromo Epic Fight Over Hillary and Russia Ties. Must see!
Makes Maria B look like the hero; but with her having been a dinjooz-media presenter for decades (mostly CNBC, AFAIK), you've gotta wonder what skeletons are in her closet?! She didn't raise Pedo-sta's pizzagate emails, after all....
I saw that on TV this afternoon, maybe it was a rerun. but it was indeed -- EPIC
This Bartiromo interview of Podesta is typical MSM theatre.
There are many ways to interpret it.
One could even say "the elite" are setting Pedoesta up to be thrown under the bus, and whether Pedoesta knows that is another story. He may even be playing a role and letting himself appear to be thrown under the bus. Or he could be really trying to defend himself to his masters to save himself. In this matter, it is not at all about what the public viewing audience thinks but Fox is certainly trying to sell that idea to their audience. The Deep State owns and controls all the cards in this game.
More and more I see that MSM entities do not need viewers, subscribers etc. They do not need money. They do not even need to stay in business and a big part of the manipulation is to make us think they need us.
I boycott lots of mainstream entities but I do it not because I think if many of us do this it will make things better for us but I think staying away from the gaming entities is what is best for one's soul.
This kind of little sub-story can even be viewed as sort of a new kind of false flag attack, as also can cyber security breaches and hackings and YouTube bannings etc. These kind of things are dialectical plays for the most part that can be used to further a single goal.