Two Disinfo Programmes Compared

Lately I've been ploughing my way through Jeff Wells' Rigorous Intuition. Like Dave McGowan, he's another of those writers that reminds me of me but without the wank-value. He has that brilliant knack of being able to write a piece without mentioning himself in the first para every time. I don't know about you but when a writer does this I take it as a sign of obvious hackery and find something better to read. The links to some superior writers are just there on the right of this page, ha ha.


And there I was reading Wells' interview with Jackie McGauley, one of the McMartin parents (part two here), when I noticed a curious thing in the comments. Lo and behold, there was a spookily precise reprise of the stoush I had with a fellow called StevieB over at Xymphora's. When I say 'fellow' what I really mean is 'paedophocracy disinfo spook'. It's almost as if StevieB and rigint's anon were reading from the same playbook. Here are the tactics loosely summarised (and yeah, I covered this before but I think it's worth repeating) -

- express curiosity for the subject and admiration for the author
- establish credibility by conceding various limited hangout points
- declare yourself off to check out the topic du jour via a bit of research
- return declaring that you looked into and found out it was all bullshit
- employ a straw-man technique of zeroing in on a single aspect of a single scandal
- ignore all evidence of this scandal's repetition elsewhere or anything that points to a bigger picture
- refer anyone who's interested to the website of the IPT where the aforementioned straw-man is destroyed
- use tag-team partners to give the appearance of consensus
- liberally sprinkle your discourse with various buzzwords: 'hysteria', 'witch-hunt', 'overzealous', 'hoax', 'debunked', 'credulous', 'paranoid', etc. etc.
- and sure enough, blame the victims and those attempting to assist them

Going back slightly, when I said just now that it was 'almost as if' they were reading from the same playbook, to be honest I was just being coy. It's my considered opinion that there is precisely a playbook. Given the size of the CIA's mind control/paedophocracy programme: with its dual bullshit 'foundations' (the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and the Institute of Psychological Therapy), both designed for no other purpose than to discredit victims; with the effort involved in both setting up 'the Finders' and shutting down the investigation into it; with the spectacular scale of the Presidio/West Point scandal with its untouchable superstar Col. Michael Aquino ...actually, to hell with listing all this shit - there's waaay too much of it and I've covered it already.


Lightbulb! I just remembered: in the aforementioned Finders bust, US Customs Service Special Agent Ramon J. Martinez, reported finding procedural handbooks detailing how to infiltrate child-minding centres and how to traffic children whilst avoiding police attention. So there you have it: 'procedural handbooks'.

Procedural handbook, playbook: let's just say, of course there'll be a dedicated disinfo programme, and of course there'll be a document detailing specific cointelpro techniques. And as sure as eggs is eggs, within that document there'll be a section dealing variously with MSM media discussions, dedicated forums and bulletin boards, and last (and probably least) blogs and bloggers. Further, these motherfuckers ain't amateurs, nor few in number. There's tons of them. If you're on a site discussing the topic (keeping in mind that the site could well have been founded by them to begin with), it'll be odds-on that more than one of the participants will be a paedophocracy disinfo spook. For those participating, keep the above list in mind and keep a weather eye out.

Back to Jeff Wells now - he, along with his commenters (what with possessing a sense of decorum) argued the case fairly politely. I've already discussed the 'value' of decorum here. Whilst that particular piece was about Zionists, it's not as if the paedophocracy is somehow more deserving. But I have to ask - what sort of discussion is it (pivoting on the scale of the paedophocracy) that fails to consider the inevitability of members of the self-same paedophocracy turning up to heap shit on the whole thing? Imagine being at a town hall meeting discussing kids drag racing in Main Street and thinking nothing of a bunch of kids who've turned up and are declaring that it isn't a problem.


Speaking of Zionists, let's compare. We all know about Israel's hasbara effort don't we? And we're familiar with Megaphone yeah? (Not forgetting of course that the American Nazi bigwig Bill White is a Megaphone user, ha ha). But forget him, just riddle me this - How come Israel's disinfo efforts are widely discussed on the net -so much so that any one of us can spot a Zionist shill from a hundred metres and go pit-bull on them without even blinking- and yet the Paedophocracy's easily-as-big cointelpro efforts go completely unacknowledged? Can you dig it? If the Jews are so powerful, why do they seem unable to duck the limelight? Indeed (within the metaphor now) it seems their efforts to wrest control of the spotlight is lit up with another spotlight.

Before anyone jumps up and imagines I'm giving the owners of the Reserve Banks along with their handmaiden bloc-media a pass, let's ask another question. In this world of either/or with its arguments about Zionist/Jewish banking control versus Vatican/illuminati/ masonic/paedophocracy control, how come the Jews, via their bloc-media, don't kill their non-Jewish opponents stone-cold dead with an uncovering of the paedophocracy in all its sick, twisted glory? There's no need to wonder what this would look like since we've already seen it with the Catholic Church. We know all about Catholic priests and I doubt we could meet one without viewing him with suspicion. Compare the media treatment of the victims of Catholic paedophilia with that of, say, the McMartin victims (and never mind the Presidio/West Point scandal, which as far as the media is concerned never happened). It's chalk and cheese, no comparison at all. One lot gets victim halos and the others get the shit beaten out of them.

Think about that. And going slightly sideways now - with Jewish people so selflessly active in every human rights issue going (even those of the Palestinians, ha ha), on the topic of satanism or the paedophocracy (of the non-Catholic variety, that is) I can't think of a single Jewish commentator who has ever touched it. Rack your brains. Give me a name. Nothing? How... is... that... possible? Honestly?

---

On this topic of allegedly opposed factions attacking each other, here's another sideways question, albeit from the other direction - What with the US military/CIA comfortably having the man-power (think mind-control assassins), the technology (think drugs, poisons, and other means of untraceable assassination), along with the unrivalled means to deliver this anywhere on the planet: why don't they take out their hated money-masters? Is it possible they don't know who they are precisely? I find that an unlikely prospect. Surely there's only a dozen families or so. To imagine a scenario, plug in the reality of the CIA death-lists given to Sukarno in Indonesia, with the posited reality of the denouement of each of the Godfather movies, wherein everyone is killed bang-bang-bang, before anyone has time to scarper.

Never mind anything that big, here's a far simpler question. People get whacked all the time, presidents included: Has anyone ever whacked a Rothschild? Um, okay, what should we conclude from this? What is this power structure precisely? Who tops it? Who is expendable? What if I make a rough thumbnail list? It follows below.

Power in Inverse Proportion to Publicity

The following list is an expression of my theory that power and publicity come in inverse proportion. Thus the most famous at the top have the least power. The least famous, ie. those most people have never heard of, come at the bottom and are actually the most powerful. See what you think.

Nazis
Historical touchstone of evil. Says Hollywood - May we never forget. The only people to have publicly thrown out the bankers in the modern age get zero good press, and their bad press is relentless, relentless, relentless. Useful as a link to neo-nazis which exist to remind everyone how anti-Semitism never went away. According to some of the more obscure corners of the net: Nazis are possibly running the CIA via Operation Paperclip.

Muslims / the devil
I'm going to declare this a tie. Muslims couldn't get any more bad press if they tried. Whilst the TV never actually declares that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, a nod's as good as a wink. The devil is a Hollywood favourite. I'm thinking his purpose is provide some reason for wickedness that doesn't pivot on selfishness. As we all know, selfishness (by way of amassing wealth etc.) is a very commendable thing to which we should all aspire.

Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc. etc.
Any story that paints this lot in a bad light is a good story, says the MSM. Not as bad as the Nazis since they haven't had a holocaust (yet). Regardless, they are a wicked crew of despotic, corrupt, torturing, deniers of human rights. The US is right to include them in their violators of human rights list every year. Ha ha ha ha ha. Honestly, that's funny isn't it?

The Vatican
I know people love to hate them but they get a ton of publicity and pretty much all of it is bad. The MSM pegs them as paedophiles at every opportunity. Or anti-Semites. Or oppressors of women. On and on, take your pick. Hollywood so frequently involves wicked clergy and hierarchy that it's hard to keep up. Certainly every devil movie involves a weak and corrupt church that is no match for him. The alternative internet goes further in terms of assassinations, banking, and the vaguest of vague talk of them somehow running things. Me, I don't buy it.

Corporations / non-paedophocracy CIA
Another tie for two very popular villains! Both get gently attacked in the news media, both make popular villains in Hollywood, both get viciously attacked on the alternative internet. MSM-only folks can agree they are probably responsible for pretty much everything, and alternative Internet types know they are. Unlike the Vatican, both of these get as much good press as bad press. Where would be without corporations? Think of all the good things they make for us. Likewise the CIA is broadly treated as honest patriots working in America's interests.

The US / the IMF and the World bank
The US in toto as some variety of coherent bad guy is a permissable target in the media, but only just. Likewise the international banking entities, but they may be discussed only as an extension of US power. Pilger does this for instance. Edgy left wing characters in Hollywood flicks may also shake their fist at the US. No problems at all on the net. Absolutely everyone will broadly agree that the US is very wicked and likewise the IMF, as long as it viewed as a US entity.

Zionists
Okay we're starting to get into more extreme territory. This word is reserved for broadsheet newspaper articles (not the first ten pages) and the occasional late night news show or documentary. In tabloids, the nightly news, and Hollywood, this word will never appear. It's far more popular on the net what with the obviousness of Zionists running US foreign policy. I mean, honestly it's pretty unmissable. Being anti-Zionist will cop calls of anti-Semitism but at least it's a defensible position. Besides, there are Jewish people who oppose Zionism (but not many and those not in any useful fashion).

Illuminati / Freemasons
This is the last level permissable in the Jewish bloc-media but only in Apocryphal contexts. Besides the series of fictional books that have been around for years, it seems a movie is coming out next year. That aside, sensible journos like Pilger will never mention them. On the other hand the net is all over them. The beauty of the Iluminati / Freemasons is that one can wave them about without being accused of anti-Semitism.

Jews in general / non-paedophocracy Rothschilds et al in particular
We're into all-internet territory now. And yes, another tie. Sure enough, the media and Hollywood will never touch Jewish people as anything other than geniuses or victims, and the Rothschilds and the other families don't exist at all. In Hollywood there is no such thing as a Jewish villain. Ever. On the net, huge sites like WHR will take every anti-Jewish story you send them - drug running rabbis, holocaust denial, fake anti-Semitism, it's all good. Everything I learnt about the private ownership of the Fed etc. came from WRH.

Limited paedophocracy
Not to be confused with amateur paedophilia which is trotted out for public consumption quite frequently. The paedophocracy as an organised satanistic structure comprising the CIA, European aristocracy, and most tiers of most government is utterly absent in the media and the vast majority of the net also. Mike Rivero at WRH won't touch it except for occasional mentions of the impossible to ignore (and 20 year old) Franklin scandal. Besides that he frequently, and apropos nothing, beats the disinfo drum re McMartin. The tiny number of people who will discuss the paedophocracy such as Dave McGowan (who coined the term no less), and Jeff Wells, view it as an extension of US power a la the IMF and World Bank. Best not to pay too much attention to Europe being an equal partner. America rules Europe it seems.

The paedophocracy as control structure under the bankers.
Is this just me? Surely not. Perhaps I should get out more. Weirdly enough Susan Ford's book Thanks For The Memories, in discussing the Council who otherwise run the whole show, painted as precise a picture of the twelve families as we're ever going to get and then went on to say that they were probably all freemasons. I don't think so. For mine a paedophocracy under the Banking families, rather than opposed to it, makes sense of things that otherwise don't make sense and is as close as we're going to get to a unified field theory explaining why the world is so fucked.

Did I miss anyone?

---

Further, the answer to why Zionist disinfo is discussed and Paedophocracy disinfo isn't becomes apparent with the list.

Henry K and the Council

The true star of Susan Ford's (Brice Taylor's) Thanks For The Memories is Henry Kissinger. Was there ever a fellow more deserving of assassination than Henry Kissinger? Hmm... there's a piece in that - 'People who deserve to be assassinated, inexplicably haven't been, and what that means'. Al Qaeda? Ha! Otherwise, for anyone who's ever wondered at the Nobel Peace Prize, no need to go any further than the fact that Henry Kissinger got one. It's a sort of unfunny Swedish Monty Python I'm thinking.


In Thanks For The Memories, Henry Kissinger is partners with Bob Hope in 'utilising' Susan Ford. Whilst that team-up may seem absurd, it actually makes perfect sense. All one has to do is plug this into Laurel Canyon with its wider implications re the significance of the entertainment industry, and the whole thing stands to reason. Regardless, the partnership of Hope and Kissinger is clearly an unequal one.

The closest analogy I came can come at for this inequality is one based on computers - imagine Susan Ford is a laptop that Bob Hope uses to find porn. He lends the laptop to all of his buddies and they likewise go nuts looking up variations of www.everyperversionknowntoman.com. The laptop always comes back to Kissinger who, unbeknownst to everyone, is systems admin super-user. What with having installed a keystroke monitor, and otherwise having full access to each of their caches, there's nothing Kissinger doesn't know about every sordid detail of their lives. Anyone who's ever run a computer system and had super-user privileges knows precisely what this means. Privilege equals knowledge and knowledge equals power.


Kissinger, not unlike Frank Zappa of Laurel Canyon, never participates in the vices he urges upon others. In spite of the fact that he was super-user and thus free to go nuts, Kissinger never availed himself of, nor even expressed an interest in, Ford's unrivalled charms. Square this with his carefully cultivated, albeit unlikely, image as debonair lady-killer. There's something not right with that picture but I don't know what it is. Otherwise it occurs to me that far more is to be concluded from those who didn't sample Susan Ford's earthly delights, than from those who did. With Ford as 'trap' anyone who falls into her qualifies as variation of 'prey'. Significantly, only Kissinger and the Rockefeller black sheep, John D Rockefeller, choose not to avail themselves of Ford's programmed easy virtue.

And then there's the council. Ford unambiguously states that Kissinger is their number one servant. Since Ford never states precisely who is on the council it's conceivable that Kissinger might not be a servant so much as a member. Whilst it pays to turn the puzzle pieces this way and that to see if greater sense might not be made of them, in this case I dismiss the possibility of Kissinger as a council member. This would posit the council as some variety of meritocracy, frankly an absurd idea. Aristocracies do not function on meritocratic principles - an obvious contradiction in terms. Their servants, absolutely: regardless of birth, talent and loyalty will be utilised. Amongst their aristocratic selves there will be a meritocracy of sorts but only from within their own ranks. Were it any other way, blood-lines might be displaced. And then where would the aristocracy be?


So who is the council? In his foreword, the author of Project Monarch, Ron Patton, discusses Adam Weishaupt being commissioned by the Rothschilds to unite various occultic organisations under the single banner of the Illuminati. Curiously, in spite of this organisation being founded and sponsored by the Rothschilds, they never get a second mention. Ford herself never discusses the Illuminati, nor the Rothschilds, nor even utters the word 'Jewish', apart from in the most innocuous circumstances. All Jewish people in this book are only incidentally so - they are bit players, innocent bystanders, or victims. And Henry Kissinger? Astoundingly Ford's book never once connects the words 'Kissinger' and 'Jewish'. Were you to read this book not knowing that Kissinger was Jewish you'd arrive at the end of it none the wiser.

But never mind Ron Patton, who does Susan Ford say the council are? She never names names and had she done so I'd view it as a black mark against her credibility. The Council she describes wouldn't be much chop if they went about introducing themselves to the help, would they? But that aside, Ford is free to hypothesize. The Council are Freemasons, she declares. Hmm... Freemasons eh? As a fellow not given to pursuing impossible riddles, I've never bothered attempting to undo the Gordian knot of the Illuminati/Freemason connection. I understand their original purpose as a professional guild. I also understand them acting as a counterweight to the ancient centralised control of Rome (this in the time prior to Adam Weishaupt). However I find their evolution into globe-spanning rulers of everything falls apart for want of coherency. What precisely are the ties that bind? Apart from the Rothschilds as sponsors, that is?


Besides that, the book tends to be at odds with its own assertion of Masonic control. Surely Prince Philip is a thirty-three degree mason? God knows how many times I've heard it asserted that the English crown, by way of its masonic/Illuminati influence, is the global big kahuna in the new world order. Square that with Ford's own recounting of her meeting with Prince Philip, and his diffident surprise and delight at being offered her singular talents. With Ford as the nexus, between Philip and Kissinger only one of them has super-user privileges, and it ain't Phil. The logic here is unmissable - Prince Philip, however high he might be in the Freemasons, is subject to Kissinger, and Kissinger is subject to the council. Not forgetting that Kissinger is Jewish and the Freemasons' transformation into internationalist Illuminati was brought about under the auspices of the Rothschilds. Honestly, Freemasons?

The other significant aspect of the Council in this regard is its ultimacy. According to Ford, there is nothing above the Council, and simple reason tells us that nor could there be. In reading of her descriptions of Council: their meetings, their communications, and their extraordinary secrecy, there is no way she's describing lieutenants. These people she describes are 'it'. In the big game of Risk they're not so much players as the writers of the rules. Given that this is the case, and given that fact that wealth equals power, we can safely declare that they are the richest people in the world. In either wealth or power, were anyone to even begin to threaten them they would have to be destroyed. Forget Sam Walton, forget Warren Buffet, forget Bill Gates, and all those other people topping the 100 richest list - ain't none of them in the running. And yep, even the Rockefellers ain't in this picture. Ford categorically states that the Rockefellers are subject to the Council. The only kind of 'Rich' that could have all these bazillionaires subject to it is that variety of rich that comes with ownership of the Fed and the international Reserve system. And the IMF. And the World Bank.


Thinking about it - the old chestnut about a business being 'a licence to print money' only possesses charm when it's not literally true. When it is literally true, the appeal of endless amounts of money becomes almost silly. It's like the child's daydream of owning a chocolate factory. A child cannot conceive that an owner of such a factory might view the product with something other than a desire to spend all day eating it. And so it is with money. Possessing a licence to print money renders the idea of a Scrooge McDuck-like accumulation of wealth as superfluous to the point of idiotic. Clearly ownership of the Reserve banking system is not about being rich. Rather the exercise becomes one of the prevention of others from achieving the same. It's about power, and that driven by a combination of hubris and a hubristic sense of immortality. Or are they the same thing? Probably.

With all that aside, let's also dismiss some other red-herrings. Ford's book is rife with satanism. Her entry point into the world of the council seems to be entirely satanistic. Interestingly Ford herself views the topic with disdain. As she later states, this disdain is shared by all those higher in the power structure. Marx's phrase about religion being 'the opiate of the masses' is ordinarily used as a dismissal, and further as a reason for Communism's smashing of religions. But viewed from another angle, ie. that of opiates/drugs as being a useful means of control, it could just as easily be an argument leading, not so much to smashing, but to co-option. In fact the latter makes far more sense than the former - why fight a thing when you could put it to work for you? Thus satanism makes far more sense as the beast being whipped than it does as the whip-hand itself, if you can dig it.



Likewise, the Roman Catholic church appears in the book and yet never in any impressive fashion. All early mentions pivot on it as part of the mechanism of the ritualistic abuse that goes into creating a MPD/DID slave. Small potatoes. Later, Ford describes putting on a quasi-religious dog and pony shows to impress the Vatican heirarchy, Pope included. Okay, I think we can safely declare a rule - Anyone on the receiving end of one of Ford's shows is not in the Council.

Going sideways now, how might we view other such religions and religiously driven 'isms'? In much the same way that Karl Marx was equally dismissive of all religions, do we imagine that the banking families of the Council would somehow get all weak-kneed for Judaism? Somehow I doubt it. Beyond Judaism is Zionism and its founding of Israel. The Rothschilds display their enthusiasm for this grand effort by living elsewhere. Sure they founded Israel, with Rothschild putting his John Hancock on the Balfour Declaration, but they founded the Illuminati too. If it's sensible to view the Illuminati as a vehicle for Rothschild co-option and control, why not view Zionism and Israel in the same fashion? It makes as much sense viewed in this fashion as any other - hell, more so. Frankly I expect that the members of the Council would hold Judaism per se in the same contempt as they'd hold for all religions - a bauble for the hoi polloi. That's not to say that it doesn't possess a variety of 'favourite' status: but only that of a tribe historically given to being loyal servants. Besides, a precise demonstration of the value of the Jewish people was given during the haggling that took place during the time of the National Socialists in Germany with Jews in great numbers being entirely expendable.


Back to the red herrings, at no time does Ford mention the nationality of those on the Council, nor does it even seem to enter into the picture. In this vein, what are we to make of the following quote (vaguely attributed to the Council) that describes the reasons for bringing Clinton down, "A cornerstone will fall, and further destabilize the American people. First Nixon, now Clinton, thus the people will lose faith in their leaders and the democratic way of life. So they will want to change it and will lean toward World Order." Hmm... "the American people" eh? Strange way for an American to describe one's own. Knowing what I know of Americans, I have to admit having trouble attributing this to any American mouth.

I know that the 'American Dream' is a myth but that doesn't mean it's not without power. I cannot believe that a person who grew up in the United States (in something other than a closet) would utter such a thing. Not forgetting of course that the New World Order is not a New American Order. With the century just ended being described unabashedly as 'The American Century' do we think that Americans would now come over all coy and worry that in naming the world order after themselves, other people might think they have swell heads? Ha ha ha ha, Americans have no such shortcomings. Americans are American to their bootstraps. They're Americans first and Internationalists second. I will never buy an American as having no attachment to his country, mythical or otherwise. The quote above could only come from a true Internationalist, someone who spent the vast majority of their life not living in the US. So! Let's also strike the CIA, the old money American ruling class, and any other significant US institution (that's not currently headed by a dual-citizen Israeli).


For mine, it seems all roads lead to the Rothschilds and the other twelve families. Collectively they remain the one ring to rule them all. How does the rest of it go? Oh yeah, "And in the darkness bind them". Exactly.

The Infectious Mindset and Rivero's 10%

Following that Holocaust thing I wrote recently, a fellow dropped into the comments section and declared Mike Rivero of What Really Happened was a Jew and perfectly untrustworthy on the subject of the Holocaust etc. He declared Rivero a gate-keeper who only let through 90%. Jewishness aside, the former claim was specious nonsense. But the latter was true. Mike Rivero does have his 10%.

But let's rewind a little. To a certain extent I started on WRH. It was the story of the USS Liberty that really did my head in. To a fellow with a Time Magazine mindset, the Liberty story was perfectly impossible, and yet here were the survivors laying it all out. It was impossible and it was true. Time and again, WRH has tripped me over the line of impossibility: remote control of wide-body passenger jets; molten as opposed to softened steel in the WTC collapse; the placement of bombs in OKC bombing; Pearl Harbour foreseen; the Holocaust; and now even global warming.

This is the infectious mindset. Once you've started, you're fucked. There is no cure for the red pill. But that's not to say that there aren't variations of red pills. There are. I wonder how many people stick with WRH as their sole provider of media-impossible stories? I understand the temptation. It's a one-stop shop. You hit it once a day and get everything you need. Curiosity's pangs of hunger nourished with a set daily diet. Who needs to go trawling through google, looking stuff up, when we have Mike to do it for us?

But like I said in an earlier piece, WRH's world is finite. It has limitations. You can spend all the time you like there and will never encounter Dave McGowan nor any mention of the 'pedophocracy'. (For late arrivals, The Pedophocracy is a must-read. It can be found here). And sure, the pedophocracy is explicitly a phrase of McGowan's creation, but the word itself is neither here nor there. It's the concept that counts. Give it whatever name you like, as long as it describes a network of immensely powerful people who traffic in children, have a penchant for satanism, and are seemingly untouchable. In terms of this big picture, I haven't a shred of doubt. The pedophocracy exists, and it exists big time.

McGowan took the red pill long ago. He wonders at things. He does not dismiss inconsistencies or make excuses for them. He asks questions, searches, and if sacred icons get smashed, well, what's a feller to do? Apart from 'Get Smashing!', ha ha.

But it's not all just iconoclasm. McGowan arrives at inevitable conclusions regardless of those conclusions being completely and utterly at odds with any sing-from-the-same-songsheet media message. We get this don't we? It's what we do. We know the media has bullshitted us on pretty much everything - certainly everything big. We're so completely there, that whatever the media says, we now start in the total and opposite direction to see if we aren't nearer the mark. That's our mindset. That's how our brains work now.


Where was I? Oh yeah, WRH's 10%. Rivero does do pedophilia from time to time. He does priests (so much so that we're now all perfectly familiar with his jokey refrain about 'always picking on the Catholics'), and he does the Franklin scandal. But that's pretty much it. Ironically, for a fellow who gives us all the stories the media ignores, on this subject he seems never to stray from the media line. The media loves to trash the Catholic Church and does pedophile priest stories to death. In fact, for many of us, the first thing that pops into our head upon hearing the word 'pedophile' is the word 'priest'. And then there's the Franklin scandal of twenty years ago. This too made the media. It was on the front page of the Washington Times no less. And sure, it was then buried and let die but that's neither here nor there. Fact is, we heard about all of it without WRH.

But Mike does other stories too. Here's a recent one, the basic thrust of which is that the current pedophile witch-hunt has run amuck. Read the link if you want, but for mine, it's the comment that's really interesting.

Feb7
Child porn scourge creates more suspects than can be arrested

Mike's Comment -
Now, I will be the first to admit that there are some very sick individuals who do some very strange things to little kids (especially among the clergy), but when I hear the word "resources" it sounds like the true scale of the problem is being exaggerated to protect someone's budget from the axe during these difficult economic times.

I recall the brouhaha about Satanic Ritual Abuse in the 1980s and 1990. A media-fed panic swept the nation that children were being abducted and in some cases intentionally bred for the purposes of use in rituals to Satan. Despite many sensational stories in the media, and huge sums of money budgeted for the investigators, not a single case of actual Satanic Ritual abuse was ever found.

One of the most famous cases of accusations of child molestation, including Satanic Ritual abuse, involved the McMartin Pre-School. One of the mothers, an alcoholic and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, accused one of the workers at the school of molesting her child. There was an arrest, nut in the absence of evidence no charges were filed. That this same woman had a history of false allegations of sexual abuse of her child was kept private, but a "Confidential" letter was circulated warning customers of the school that the issue of sexual molestation had been raised. Fanned by the media and by a local Catholic church that openly called for the death of the main McMartin suspect, Ray Buckey, the situation exploded into hysteria. Parents were convinced their children were victims. Interrogators pressured the children to "remember" the abuse, and forensics tests which contradicted the claims were scrapped while new and unproven testing procedures were tried.

After six years and $15 million, the case ended with no convictions. In hindsight, it was recognized that this had been a witch-hunt in the truest Medieval sense of the word. Popular imagination had run wild, and the people paid to find molesters had seen molesters at every turn, whether they were truly there or not.

In hindsight, it was clear that the children had simply gone along with whatever the interrogators suggested had happened, more in the spirit of a game than our of malice. That no evidence was ever found off the secret underground tunnels that figured in the lurid stories should have been a warning but it was not. The trials proceeded to their humiliating end.

Now, as I said above, I understand that there really are some very sick people out there. But when I hear claims that there are simply too many of them to arrest without more resources, I have to wonder if this is a problem with the economy, rather than with the real crime.

In her book, "Who Stole Feminism" Christina Hobbs Sommers revealed that while rape is and remains a real crime, there was no explosive epidemic of rape in the 1990s. The so-called rape "crisis" was a manufactured issue used to fill talk shows, sell books, and mostly to justify funding for campus rape centers and rape counselors, most of whom sat idle a great deal of the time. Like the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic, the Rape Crisis resulted in a flood of false accusations of rape which had the long term result of making it more difficult for real rape victims to get be believed. But the money flowed to the self-appointed saviors and that was the important thing.

So, I have to view the huge numbers of offenders mentioned in this article and wonder if (not unlike the global warming scam) the situation is being exaggerated to make a grab for more public funds, or at least dodge the budget ax as the economy slides.

If there is one lesson to be learned from the real Medieval witch hunts, it's that when you pay people to see witches, they will believe witches truly exist, and that bystanders, rather than miss out on the fun, will gladly join the hysteria.

What a long comment! Especially given that it's not factual. Unless there were two McMartins and I was watching another one, that is. Whilst McMartin was pre-red pill for me, that's not to say I wasn't paying attention. I was, and my recollection was not of a media witch-hunt per se, but rather of a media condemnation of a witch-hunt, pretty much precisely like Mike's above. As I understood it at the time - the whole thing was hysteria, the McMartin folks were innocent, and the parents and counsellors were all nutters, drunks, and villains. That's what the media told me and I believed them. Between an impossible crime, and the oh-so-credible False Memory Syndrome Foundation telling us that people just invented these crazy stories, I bought the 'false memory' line. It never occurred to me at the time that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation might be a creation of the CIA, funded by God knows who, and entirely staffed by 'ex'-spooks and 'ex'-pedophiles.

But never mind all that, best to keep things simple. So I wrote to Mike and set him straight on a key fact -

Hi Mike,

I hate to tell you this, but the tunnels under the McMartin school were found precisely as described. Google 'E Gary Stickel Phd McMartin tunnels'. That should sort you out.

Stickel by the way is actually famous. He's the archeologist Spielberg went to when he needed a consultant for Raiders of the Lost Ark. He's the real deal. And he found the tunnels and said so.

The tunnels were there. And if the tunnels were there, the kids and the parents weren't bullshitting. The drunk you mention only got that way because no one would believe her. Can't say I blame her myself.

It wasn't a witch hunt mate. It was real.

If it's any consolation I thought it was bullshit too. But the facts are undeniable and I changed my position.

best,

nobody

Mike's not a chatty fellow so I got no reply. Nor did my thing appear on his letters page. But this one did -

READER: Thank you for your mention of the McMartin Preschool fiasco. A few points are worth mentioning. You wrote, "There was an arrest, but in the absence of evidence no charges were filed." Not so - charges were filed against 7 people, though dropped for all but 2, Peggy Buckley and her son, Ray. Ray Buckley spent 5 years in jail on a no-bond hold. Peggy's bond was $1million. The investigation and subsequent 2 trials resulted in a criminal case even longer and more expensive for Orange County, than OJ's. Actually, it was the longest and most expensive in American history. At the same time, as you note, other such cases against preschool teachers (and parents, grandparents, clergy) popped up around the country (bringing to light the phenomenon of 'false memory syndrome'). The second most well-known one occurred in North Carolina, the Little Rascals/Edenton Seven. Again, after the hysteria and trial, all were acquitted. A good website recap on the McMartin case is http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartinacco... And an award-winning 1995 movie starring James Woods covers the subject well - 'Indictment; The McMartin Trial.'
WRH: There were no charges in the initial arrest; the one following the single accusation by the women who was a paranoid schizophrenic. The charges you describe occured later after a media-whipped frenzy made it politixally imperitive that someone be charged with something.

Um... is that interesting? I guess. Mike certainly seems down on the details. And it's certainly good reinforcement of the themes of 'hysteria', 'schizophrenic', 'waste of money', and 'false memory syndrome'. Pity they're all false. So I wrote to Mike again -

Hello Mike,

It seems my email yesterday went astray. I'm sending it again since you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that there were no tunnels under the McMartin school. There were tunnels. Like I said, just google 'E Gary Stickel Phd McMartin tunnels'.

I look forward to you addressing this issue.

best,

nobody

PS By the way, that False Memory Syndrome is a product entirely of the creation of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. If you google the names of the founders +pedophile, and +CIA, you might be in for a surprise - Martin T Orne, Louis Jolyon West, Ralph Underwager, and Peter and Pamela Freyd. Otherwise, did you not ever wonder where they got their funding?

Sure enough, no reply. But front page on WRH the next day is the ever reliable Franklin Scandal as a prompt for another comment on McMartin.

Feb 8

Franklin scandal (curiously, no use of his standard 'Flashback' preface)

Mike's comment -
The McMartin pre-school scandal made headlines for months and cost $15 million and wound up finding all parties innocent, but THIS scandal never saw the light of day because the corporate media refused to touch it.

Weirder and weirder! To highlight the fact that the Franklin scandal never saw the light of day because the corporate media refused to touch it, Mike actually posted the front page of the Washington Post on which it appeared. Ha ha ha ha. (Go on! That has to be worth a laugh, surely?!)

Am I the only person wondering what's going on here? What's up with this obsession with a twenty year old scandal that was covered in the media anyway? Isn't WRH all about the stories the media doesn't tell you? Go search WRH, see if you can find any mention of 'The Finders'. In spite of it being one of the biggest mindfucks ever, it doesn't exist on WRH. Just for the record, that's '0' results. Keep searching, look for 'Dutroux', look for 'West Point' or 'Presidio', hell, just put in 'pedophile'. For this last obvious search input, the new WRH provides two results, both of which are above. On the old WRH, you get fifteen. To put that in perspective, now try putting in 'Israel'.

I shake my head on this. I can sort of understand his position on McMartin and 'false memory syndrome' since it used to be my position. But that was before I was seized by the infectious mindset. And what, Mike doesn't have this mindset? Huh? Didn't I catch it from him? Surely his head is there.

Okay, so how is it that his site contains no mention of 'The Finders'? How is that possible? It's the perfect WRH story - crims caught dead to rights with a van full of kids; a customs agent's report detailing the bust of their headquarters (!); the CIA, the FBI, the Washington Metro police shutting down the investigation; and overall, the obviousness of wickedness at a colossal scale. Plug it into McMartin, the military childcare scandal, and yes, even Franklin, and the whole thing goes exponential.

But not at WRH it doesn't. On this subject, WRH is with the media. There is only one variety of pedophilia, and that mostly in the Catholic church. Beyond this there are individual perverts who occasionally seem to act in concert, but in no significant fashion. Any talk of childcare centres, global networks, or satanism, are notreallyhappened non-events, or otherwise discreditable variations of witch-hunt craziness, bad schizophrenic craziness, or just regular, old-fashioned alcoholic craziness. Which is to say, the victims imagined it all.

Is it just me, or are we in 'nothing-to-see-here-folks-move-along' territory?

I'll leave it to you to take your pick of excuses. Either the subject is too distasteful for Mike (unless Catholics are involved) and he prefers not to go there. Or it's a hurdle too far for him to get over - the Holocaust, no problem - but for the pedophocracy, his mental horse shies. Or perhaps some other reason occurs to you. Perhaps it occurs to me too. And?

And, let's just say Mike Rivero has a 10%, and this is it.