Lighting the Moondoggie

This started as a comment for Penny's blog but quickly sprawled into something too big for there. And too big for here too, ha ha. Still here it is -


Hey Pen,

Just back from six pages of Dave's Moondoggie. First up I gotta say I'm with him in toto. That is, I (and my little dog too!) agree with him that the Apollo missions were bullshit. Humans have never been to the moon and I expect he's right in saying that they never will.

But a couple of his arguments are bullshit and I reckon he'd be better off dropping them. Which is to say, on the subject of shadows, ambient light, and second light sources, he's completely wrong. He declares he knows a lot about photography, but regretfully I'm going to have to trump him with my ten years in 3D. A 3D heavy will understand light to a degree way beyond any photographer. Sorry if that puts any photographers' noses out of joint but it's the cold hard truth.

As an example, I'll ask the question - has anyone got a glass of water with them right now? If you don't, go get one. Now put the glass on the table. Now pick it up. Now put it down. Repeat this a few times and watch the play of light and shadow on the table. In amongst this is refraction, reflection, and shadow. Sure enough, a photographer can play with this: he can have more or less; he can light it from different angles; he can add mood: dramatic, gentle, whatever - and then he shoots it and bills the agency $5000. Lucky him.


What he does not have to do is figure out how to make the light do that thing. The effect as such, is pretty much done for him. In 3D nothing is done for you. If I want those pretty 'caustics' in my glass of water scene, I have to make them myself. Subsequently it is the lot of the 3D operator to spend a great deal of time contemplating the nature of light and how it is passed from object to object. If I don't tell the assorted objects within my scene how I want them to do this, then they ain't gunna - it's as simple as that. There is no default 'just-do-whatever-nature-does' setting. Instead there is 'incandescence', 'diffuse', 'specular roll-off', 'eccentricity', and an endless array of jargonistic concepts that are the lot of someone who has to define the laws of physics for every single shot.

Hmm... it's like re-inventing the wheel every time, except we also have to re-invent the earth, and then explain to both the earth and wheel the existence of the other, and how they should view that. Welcome to 3D.

---

Now - the behaviour of light: Dave declares that light can only reflect back to where it came from. Oh dear - wrong answer. It is the nature of light that when it hits an object (regardless of what direction it comes from) the light then bounces in all directions. If it didn't we wouldn't see anything. If you see a thing it's because the light that has struck it (from the sun, say) has bounced into your eye. Whilst the light from the sun is effectively parallel, it does not likewise reflect in a single direction, ie. into your eye and your eye alone. It bounces in an infinite number of directions, and thus into everyone's eye. That's why 50,000 people can sit in a cricket ground and regardless of whether the sun is behind them, or in front of them, or wherever, they can all see the action in the middle of the field.


Clearly this reflected light does not go into our eye as some kind of go-nowhere-else one-way trip. Light is a 'lady of easy virtue' that will bounce around and around. Thus the people in the cheap seats on the hill who are in direct sunlight can still see the lah-di-dah sorts in the member's stand who are in shadow. They are lit by ambient light - the light that has bounced into them from the ground, the other stands, and yes, the atmosphere in the sky.

Now, before anyone pipes up with how the moon doesn't have any atmosphere, let me cut you off and say you've grasped the wrong end of the stick. Whilst atmosphere, or more precisely clouds, can produce soft, multidirectional light, in no way is this the be-all-and-end-all of ambient light. A photographer who knows the difference between the hard light that strikes a person on a sunny day and the soft ambient light that strikes them on a cloudy day, and thinks that 'cloud equals ambient' needs to think again. Ambient light is merely light that comes from all directions instead of one. Clouds make this happen, sure, but so do lots of things. When clouds intercede between the sun and the object being lit, the light passes through the clouds and loses its hard parallel nature. The clouds are now the light source and the light it puts out bounces around in every goddamn direction and is thus reduced, diffuse, and 'ambient'.


But the fact is, we don't need clouds to do this. Let's go into deep space, way beyond the moon, way beyond anything. It's just me and my camera and a white volleyball (um, which I've filled with black sticky rice and egg custard to, a) stop it exploding with differential pressure, and b) give me a delish last meal before I die of the radiation). Anyway, under Dave's photographer-logic of atmosphere-equals-ambient, the ball will be dazzling on the side lit by the sun and in perfect darkness on the side not lit. Or it would be if I wasn't floating next to it. Bugger! It seems like the light bounces off me and acts as a 'fill'. Sure enough, my white space-suit acts as a variety of mirror that reflects light back at the volleyball. In precisely the same way that light strikes the ball and bounces in all directions (one of which is into my eye), the light will also strike me and my white space-suit, and bounce in all directions (one of which is into the volleyball). The Dark Side of the Volleyball will be lit, and atmosphere ain't got nothin' to do with it. (Nor Pink Floyd, ha ha).

I will reflect light into the ball and the ball will reflect light into me. This would be vaguely directional sure, rather than truly ambient, but... if we had enough astronauts and enough volleyballs, and all floating in the middle of nowhere like some mad, drug-fuelled outer space sticky rice and egg custard wig-out... deep breath... in the centre of that would be true ambient light bounced in from all directions. And all without atmosphere.


And so! There we are on the moon, and we're shooting the other astronaut who happens to be standing in complete shadow. Beyond him in the background we can see the surface of the moon. Which is to say, direct light is striking it and bouncing in every direction, one of which is into our eye. If we see it, it must be so. Okay, and since it's bouncing in every direction it must bounce at him also. And of course, from him this weakened light must likewise bounce in all directions, one of which will be into our eye. It cannot be any other way. And yes, there is no atmosphere but it doesn't make any difference. Light does not need atmosphere to bounce around and behave in an ambient fashion.

With the surface of the moon acting as an ambient light generator, a matt black object will bounce (reflect, same-same) very little ambient light back at us, but a white object will reflect quite a lot. And of course a fully reflective metallic foil object will bounce nearly all of it back at us. And sure enough, it's all right there in the photo just as it should be. And whether we're on the moon, in the studio, whatever, it doesn't make any difference. The ambience is no proof of anything one way or t'other.

---

And then there's the shadows, particularly those in the photo of the two landing pads on the 'lunar' surface. I'll happily concede that it isn't the lunar surface, and is in all likelihood cement dust sprinkled on the floor of the Lookout Mountain Studio in Laurel Canyon. But what I will absolutely not concede is that there are two light sources in this picture. Believe it or not, there is only a single light source and all the shadows accord with it. As head of 3D my job was precisely to look for errors of this nature and this picture hasn't got any. The foreground grey stick is square to us and about twenty degrees from the ground. The background leg is not quite square to us and maybe 75 degrees to the ground. Their shadows, along with those of the bumps in the extreme foreground are exactly right for a single light source, camera-right, and elevated at approximately 45 degrees.


I swear to God - professional reputation, the whole thing - this photo is halal. Without a shadow of a doubt (ha ha), I could build this scene in 3D and prove it utterly. It'd be the big don't-argue from hell. But to be honest, I couldn't be fagged. And besides what would I be proving? That the guys who faked these photos were smart enough to do the sensible and obvious thing and use a single light source? Shake my head - what a waste of time...

Besides that, if there were two light sources, we'd see one of two things: a) some of the objects would be lit from two directions and cast two shadows; or b) with the foreground objects and the background objects having each their own separate hard lighting, between them in the mid-ground there would be either a double lit area or a band of shadow - pick one. Blending two lights in this fashion is murderously difficult. I've tried to do it and it's a fool's errand. No one would waste their time.

And besides, take a look at this shot - what's the fucking point? Two landing pads occupying a small area of ground? Big deal. It's hardly a hero shot, and it could easily be lit by one light source, and so... why wouldn't you? Why bother with two lights? Sure enough, it is lit by a single light source. Me, I haven't got any kids but I'd be perfectly happy to swear on the lives of someone else's. Or is that too ghoulish? Hell, just take my word for it.

Oh! I tell you what - if anyone feels really confident on this shadow caper, like really, really confident, like 50oz of gold confident (all the money I have in the world), and wants to put their money where their mouth is, I'll take that bet! I'll dig up my 3D Maya license, clock up a day's labour, and Baby, I'm a Rich Man, Yeah!

---

Mind you, I wouldn't feel good about taking that money. I'm not that cruel and besides, in the big discussion I agree with Dave. Previously I'd never had much time for the Apollo Hoax crowd and that was mostly due to the chronic nature of the wrong-shadow/ambient-light argument. Happily Dave attacked the whole Apollo question in his usual brilliant holistic fashion and I'm now on board. But as I progressed through his moondoggie piece, the head of steam that had built up (of the 'Go Dave Go!' variety) all came to a grinding halt once the dreary specifics of the lighting kicked in. Bugger! We were rocking and rolling and now it's all fallen flat!

Dave! Ditch those two photes mate! They ain't doing you any favours!

Walter Bowart, meet Carl Cameron

A plunge down the memory hole! Penny sent me this book in pdf ages ago and I only just now got around to reading it (sorry Pen and thanks). I have to say that this book is, if you'll forgive the term, a complete mindfuck. So much so I want to urge it upon everyone.


But! It doesn't exist! The CIA bought the entire print run. It was even disappeared from public libraries. Admittedly it's on Amazon but only as second hand copies and those are going at a hundred bucks each. You read that right - US$100. Given this, and given the fact that the author died a couple of years ago, I see no problems with me making it available for download - 2.9MB pdf - off you go.

The book itself is written in a straightforward newspaper journalese. It's Dave McGowan albeit with a bigger bibliography and more footnotes. In many ways Operation Mind Control is a prequel to McGowan's Progammed To Kill. Ideally you'd read Bowart first and McGowan second. But really it's neither here nor there. Each book reveals the most astounding facts and there's very little direct overlap.

The main thought that kept running through my head as I read this book was that it was written in 1978. My naive wonderings in that know thyself piece were old hat well over thirty years ago. Bowart discusses the use of computers back when supercomputers had less grunt than a mobile phone now has. As for the book's discussion of tiny electronic implants in the skull for remote triggering, you don't need me to tell you how far we've come with that. Not forgetting that whatever we might know about RFID, we barely know the half of it, and even then the truth will be ten years ahead of that.

As then there's the drugs. Good God! LSD, as huge as that was, was just a small part of it. They tested everything - Bowart's book lists over 130 drugs. Since then I'd bet that there'd be that many again as families of drugs. And for every 'happy' drug like Prozac (even that's old hat now) there will be ten black opposites. The book makes clear that very little mind research takes place without spook involvement. And if this spook funded industry comes up with anything 'good', ie. useful for something other than the black arts, it's a complete fluke. The last thing they're interested in is improving the lot of mankind.

Bowart paints a picture of mind control taken to such a degree of perfection that it's staggering. Anyone could be made to do anything and have no memory of it at all. And that was thirty years ago. And here we are today, with endless discussions of 'how is this all possible', and yet Bowart had the answer in 1978. His book makes it clear that just about anyone, given several weeks of programming could be made to do pretty much anything - right up to killing their own mother. And after having done so, they would think nothing of it. And further, were they to be hooked up to a lie detector and asked if they knew anything about their mother's death they would pass with flying colours. Don't forget (and it's worth italicising twice) - that was over thirty years ago.

In 1978 a computer interface consisted of green glowing text in a UNIX shell. Now we have gorgeous photographic desktops with little animating icons, all of which are endlessly editable. I'll bet money that the fully operational mind control programme of that time, has now advanced to a similar level of sophistication. The 'tech' endlessly talked about by that fellow over in the Smoking Mirrors comments section seems perfectly feasible.

Once again, I'm forced to re-evaluate everything. Obama spent two years working for a CIA front company did he? Well that's all it takes. Pick a leader who makes no sense and plug him or her into this book and see if you don't view them in a whole new light. Sure enough, bring up 'mind control' in any discussion of current world events and you'll be viewed as a crackpot. But honestly, read this book and you'll know that there's no point discussing such things without mind control being considered as a distinct possibility.

---

The only point of contention for mine is who owns the mind control caper. Bowart, like McGowan with his paedophocracy, posits his 'cryptocracy' as a product of the CIA, the NSA, the US military and sundry US government acronyms, and all of this under the control of about 'twenty people'. We're left to assume that these twenty are all of the American ruling class. Me, I don't buy it - way back when, this might have been the case, but not anymore. The rule now seems to be that as the stakes rise higher, so does the likelihood of the US elite absurdly acting against their own interests. Honestly, we see it over and over.


Since we're in memory hole territory, why don't I put up another disappeared story - it's Carl Cameron's Fox News reports of Israeli spying, and specifically Amdocs and Comverse Infosys. It's in mov format and comes in four parts, each between 10 and 15MB.

Watch these and ask yourself - if the US spook elite is so powerful, how is it possible that they'd let two such crucial apparatuses of spook control end up in Israeli hands? If they really were such ne plus ultra powers, there is no way known that these insanely important telecommunication functions would be in any hands other than American ones. QED.

Besides, watch Cameron's reports and see how these all-powerful institutions flail about, unable to do anything about Israeli spying. Not forgetting that the FBI's biggest case for decades, the AIPAC spy trial, just folded with only a single guy going to jail, and he was American. Honestly, for the old school American elite this was nothing other than an ignominious, shit-spattered defeat - an unambiguous, in-your-face demonstration of who's in charge.

Let's not forget that the CIA, founded as an umbrella organisation to whom every other intelligence agency would report, is now itself underneath the Department of Homeland Security run by an Israeli citizen. (Hmm... it seems we have unstoppable programmed killers and yet Michael Chertoff remains unwhacked. More QED for the question of 'whose cryptocracy is this?')

Let's finish with a quote from Operation Mind Control about Dr. George Estabrooks, who in the early forties theorised about what the fiendish Japanese might do with a single hypnotist -

It would be possible, he said, for "the enemy" to plant a foreign agent as a doctor in a hospital or his own office. This "doctor" could, by means of fake physical examinations, place thousands of people under his power over a period of time. Estabrooks projected how, by hypnotizing key officers and programming them to follow suggestions, this "masked maneuver" could enable a lowly first lieutenant to take over the reins of the entire U.S. Army.

Ha ha ha, such fatuous nonsense. I have a much better idea. Why not let the intelligence agencies spend all their time and money conducting experiments and torture etc. and then if what results is a thing worth having, just take the reins when it's done? Cue the maniacal laughter! Ha ha ha ha! Bloody evil genius, me! Oh wait, it seems someone already thought of it. Damn.

Pedophocracy Disinfo 101 - Stevieb shows how it's done!

The following is me piling into the comments on Xymphora's posting 'Why all the American traitors?' In it, he wonders at why the American old guard has so utterly sold out to Jewish interests. His conclusion? 'I think it is just power.' Which is to say powerful people want more power and thus they hitch their wagon to those even more powerful, the Jews (ie. it's a voluntary gig and they've only themselves to blame). I have a different view sure enough.

But that's not the point of the exercise. The point is, that in a discussion of the second most powerful structure in the world, the pedophocracy, a disinfo merchant showed up and gave us all a salutary lesson in how it's done. It's word perfect. You start with an expression of open-minded empathy and then go from there...


nobody
04/01/2009 10:46 PM
You think it's just power? No way known. Go google 'mcgowan pedophocracy'. Read chapter six about 'The Finders' and tell me that this isn't the secondary enforcement structure. And McGowan only scratches the surface. Keep digging. Go deep into Dutroux. Check out the Casa Pia scandal in Portugal. Look into the isle of Jersey and how it plugs into Bournemouth, North Wales, Belfast. The links (always reaching right to the top) spread everywhere - Italy, Russia, France, Holland. Nowhere is untouched. And each scandal connects to every other one.

The structure undoubtably exists and explains things brilliantly. 'Um, I think it's power' really isn't up to your usual high standards X. And yeah I get it that the subject is so mind-bogglingly ugly that the response is to dismiss it and turn away, but that's the idea.

But if you ain't prepared to go there, you'll merely spend the rest of your life scratching your head.

I doubt anyone could be fagged but here were my thoughts on the matter - here and here

-

stevieb
04/02/2009 11:39 AM
For Nobody: I was doing some reading into the allegations of child porn rings and ritual abuse and murder - repulsive in the extreme, but fascinating nonetheless.

But as far as the McMartin pre-school story - was that thoroughly debunked? As I remember none of the children had any physical signs of abuse and the stories were planted in the children's head by some overzealous child-abuse experts.

Adding that to the other more credible stories tends to weaken the whole pedophocracy allegation - for me, at least

-

nobody
04/02/2009 09:22 PM
Hey StevieB,

Should've clicked the first link mate. It was precisely about McMartin. But never mind, here's a quick summary -

The stories of parents as deluded victims of an hysterical, out of control, mob of social workers were false, and demonstrably so. The so-called 'False Memory Syndrome Foundation' is funded by the CIA and staffed by 'ex'-CIA and 'ex'-paedophiles. Martin T Orne, Louis Jolyon West, Ralph Underwager, and Peter and Pamela Freyd. There is no scientific basis to 'False Memory Syndrome'. Not a lick. They've been thrown out of court over and over.

The woman who started it all, famously 'drunk' and 'schizophrenic', was neither until she began getting death threats and came under a relentless media attack. She didn't imagine the assault on her son, she just wanted to know why blood was running from his anus. This is NEVER mentioned. All we hear was that she was nuts. And besides, a dozen of the kids had chlamydia. Do the math on that. Which is to say, you don't catch chlamydia from toilet seats.

The McMartin case eventually pivoted on the existence of tunnels running from the pre-school to various properties. The line was that since the tunnels didn't exist the whole thing was a mad invention. Astoundingly (not really) the media was utterly uninterested in the fact that an uber-famous, well-qualified archeologist E. Gary Stickel found the tunnels precisely as described. The logic is bullet-proof. The kids described tunnels, the tunnels were found as described, the kids weren't lying.

Tunnels are not the work of one enthusiastic guy and his buddy. It takes teams to dig tunnels. Plug this into the utter disinterest of the police and the media; 'ex'-FBI plants 'assisting' the parents; the enormity of a well funded organisation like the 'False Memory Syndrome Foundation'; a complete lack of convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence; and the replication of this story in the Presidio/West Point scandal, the 'Finders' scandal in Florida and Washington, the Franklin scandal, etc etc ad nauseam, with the same names continually popping up, and you're in amongst something fucking huge. Really Fucking Huge.

No need to take my word for it. Just get googling. I've given you plenty of names here. Time to open your eyes. You get your head around this and the only question left is 'Whose pedophocracy is it?'

-

stevieb
04/03/2009 12:15 PM
There's more to it than that, Nobody. I have a book - not by any of the authors in the lengthy expose (and I did find some of accusations - after source checking - credible)- that gives a detailed account of the trial, the children involved and the teachers involved.

And that was very credible.

I'll have to look for it - i have thousands of books - but I think it was called "Satan's children" or something like that.

But anyway - as I say the rest is very interesting and there is no doubt about the Marc Dutroux affair, so there is definitely alot of important people that need to be behind bars at the very least.

Flogged and quartered is more like it...

-

stevieb
04/03/2009 12:19 PM
There's YouTube footage from Belgium showing the dungeons in the bastard's house that will make you feel sick...

-

stevieb
04/03/2009 12:29 PM
OK , Nobody - I see what you mean. I read the first link - I'll get back to you later.

There were tunnels under the McMartin pre-school?

Well, that IS interesting....

-

nobody
04/03/2009 11:13 PM
Hey StevieB,

Well that's the thing you see. Yes there are books, articles, and documentaries, all explaining how it was the fault of the parents and social workers. Just like there were books, articles, and documentaries, all explaining how there were WMD's in Iraq. Same-same 911. Same-same the USS Liberty. Same-same you-name-it.

The scale of the disinfo for the Pedophocracy alone speaks volumes as the size of this thing. Honestly, that there's a bullshit 'foundation', a bullshit 'syndrome', a bullshit sing-from-the-same-songbook media campaign, with books, movies, and documentaries is proof enough of the enormity of what we're in amongst.

As a power-base, a means for corruption and control, the pedophocracy is unrivalled. None may stand against it. The trail of bodies the pedophocracy has in its wake makes the Kennedy assassination look second rate. Seriously.

But first things first. The primer for this is Dave McGowan's 'Pedophocracy'. He's a terrific writer with a marvellous breezy style. Here it is - http://mindcontrolforums.com/pedo1.htm

It's all good, but chapter six, will blow your mind. It details the 'Finders' bust and has in full the customs agent's report detailing what he found at their 'headquarters'. Paedophiles with 'headquarters' - who knew? And wait until you find out what happened to his report and who made it happen. I'd say it was unbelieveable, but read it and disbelief won't be an option.

-

stevieb
04/04/2009 02:12 AM
Err - my research has shown there were no tunnels under McMartin pre-school. Thats horsecrap.

And so is the rest. I shoulda known betta.

-

nobody
04/04/2009 02:36 AM
Did E Gary Stickel come up in your research?

http://www.whale.to/b/stickel.html

Did you look into 'False Memory Syndrome'? Did you check out Dave McGowan? Did you read about the 'Finders' bust? How about the Presidio/West Point child-minding scandals? I'm thinking 'not'.

What was your research Stevie? Between E Gary Stickel, his Phd, and an experienced dig team, and your 'research' which obviously came up against some disinfo, I'll stick with Stickel mate.

-

nobody
04/04/2009 03:36 AM
Actually now that I think about it, that was really beautiful. A perfect example of how it's done.

"I looked into it. It's crap. And so is the rest. I should've known betta." - Case closed, nothing to see here.

Any curious waverers out there? Don't worry, Stevie, who was like you and initially curious, has done some research and since he's determined that it's crap, you may too. No need to look into it for yourselves or otherwise do all that arduous googling. It was crap after all.

Whew! Everyone go back to whatever it was you were talking about before. There is no pedophocracy, the False Memory Syndrome foundation isn't staffed by spooks and paedophiles, the parents at McMartin imagined it all, and you probably can catch chlamydia from a toilet seat. Honestly, what was I thinking of?

-

stevieb
04/04/2009 11:10 AM
Look Nobody - why not look a little closer yourself instead of throwing around straw men. As I said before - alot of what is posted about the pedophocracy was quite credible (and had very little to do with Satanism it seems. I should have been more specific when I said 'the rest is crap'.)

But including the McMartin pre school in there is just going to get you laughed at, unfortunately. The tunnels are a hoax perpetrated by some more overzealous idiots.

BTW are you saying that it isn't possible to plant ideas into the heads of small children?

-

stevieb
04/04/2009 11:16 AM
Google "McMartin tunnel hoax". You'd have to believe the entire Los Angeles justice system was compromised to believe that those tunnels are anything but fiction.

Why would you waste your time with this when there are bigger fish to fry and some credible evidence in other areas I don't understand...

-

nobody
04/04/2009 08:30 PM
The entire Los Angeles legal system? What, like that's a lay-down misere? Read chapter six of McGowan's pedophocracy and see the size of the system that refused to touch the 'finders'. How big is the system that refuses to acknowledge that anyone except for 19 Muslims brought down three high rise buildings in their own footprints?

And why stop at 'McMartin Tunnel Hoax'. Go type in 'JFK hoax'. Apparently it was a lone gunman after all. Of course the tunnels are dismissed as a hoax. Everything is. Those who would conspire wouldn't be much chop if they didn't expend energy declaring that the people who've sussed them out are nothing more than hoaxers, bullshit artists, and froot-loops. It's called disinfo mate. You can be that dupe if you want, no skin off my nose. That's just me being charitable you understand. Others would be less charitable to those pushing disinfo.

But let's just pretend you're a dupe and I'm not wasting my breath talking to you - Between E Gary Stickel, an archeological heavy with no stake in the whole affair and giving his honest professional opinion; and him as deluded, or keen to delude ('overzealous idiot' was it?), all the while in the teeth of a huge smear campaign with only his professional reputation at stake, you're going to run with the latter are you? Like that makes a lick of sense.

But fuck it. Who cares? No one here, that's for sure. Xymph ponders at the US establishment kowtowing to tiny ethnic minority and comes to a soft-as-shite conclusion - the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world just aren't quite powerful enough. Meanwhile, I proffer a working model of corruption and control that exists as a cold hard certainty with bullet-proof trails leading into the FBI, CIA, the military, and the government, and everyone blinks and goes back to their previous conversation, or otherwise airily waves their hand in dismissal. Anyway, no need to fear, there'll be new post soon enough and you can all go back to thinking of reasons why the entire US establishment is in thrall to the Jews that don't involve organised blackmail by way of paedophilia.

Hell, I'll help you out: they were caught sleeping with someone who was not their wife; they're closet gays; they accepted gifts and didn't declare them; they lied to congress; they did it for the money. The fact that none of these would make me, nor any of you, sell out your country is neither here nor there. You should all think nothing of it. Or just scratch your heads saying, 'Gee I don't know, it's all too difficult'. I'm good either way. Besides, as if the kind of people who'd stage false-flag mass terror events in order to start a war would stoop to paedophilia to get what they want! The very idea is preposterous.

I'll leave you all to it. Enjoy.

-

manfromatlan (as well-meaning bystander)
04/04/2009 11:08 PM
It isn't that Xymphora or others around here don't follow the link between pedophilic rings, blackmail, and ritual sex abuse or treat it lightly, nobody. Looking at the many references provided on the internet it looks like abuse did take place at the McMartin Day Care. We have so many hushed up pedophile ring cases in Canada and the UK, of course people care. But people aren't going to get bogged down in the minute details. Me, what got me was the children's videotaped testimony about the abuse and the hospital nurse's report (which got shot down by the lawyers)

-

nobody
04/05/2009 02:37 AM
Bugger the details. Arguments about details are a technique to shoot down a discussion of the bigger picture (and I fell for it, sure). But my initial on-topic point was precisely about the big picture. These disparate events in Canada etc etc aren't disparate. It is a single structure. Like I keep saying, read McGowan's pedophocracy, particularly chapter six. Anyone who wants to tell me that the report written by Special Agent Ramon J. Martinez, United States Customs Service, was bullshit is on a hiding to nothing as pedophocracy disinfo spook.

And if anyone thinks I'm being paranoid, think of the effort that went into the CIA's Mockingbird op. Well a tuppence for that. The pedophocracy is above the CIA. Don't laugh, just go read the report. It's at the link above. I absolutely guarantee you won't be laughing then. More effort goes into shutting down, obscuring, or otherwise disappearing discussions about the pedophocracy than any other thing - JFK, 911, the London bombings, you name it, none of these things compares. The threat of exposure as a paedophile is the ultimate don't-argue. When someone has a photo of you en flagrante dilecto with a kid, you do ANYTHING they say. Exposure is the end of the world. Can we dig it?

And some guy turned up and said he looked into it and it's bullshit... well shit, eh?

On topic again - If you're looking for a mechanism whereby the American elite (hell, any elite, I don't care how 'powerful' it is) can be forced to sell out their own interests, here it is. Pedophocracy uber alles.

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:44 AM
Nobody - relax. FIrst off this 'heavy' of an archealogist used two parents of supposed victims to perform the dig - and the evidence consists of couple of children's toys that could have easily been planted. Whic, regardless is not evidence of tunnels.

If there were tunnels under McMartin pre-school there would be lots of evidence. There isn't.

Now explain to me why this is disinfo?

And again - I'm questioning the McMartin satanic cult accusations only. So your consistently referring to this as denying the pedophocracy is wrong.

And I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest Sickel is a 'heavy'. And how do you know he has absolutely nothing at stake in the affair? What do you know aboutGary Sickel?(not STickel)

Inevitably I'm thinking I will be called a plant - but you should know that I am not and that your going to have to do better than suggestin g I've something at a stake in calling into question your thesis.

But I'll read chapter six and see if that brings some stronger facts to the table....

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:46 AM
It is Stickel -lol.

Sorry....

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:56 AM
In one of your links, the blogger in question repeatedly said that tunnels had been found under McMartin pre-school.

No tunnels were ever found.

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:58 AM
And a discussion of details is not intended to shoot down the entire thesis. It is to confirm or deny it based on evidence.

Do you have any formal schooling, Nobody?

I know this may sound condescending - and for that I apologize - but it may explain your aversion to relying on facts and credible sources...

-

stevieb
Yesterday 10:13 AM
yes and no, penny.

Yes it can be, sure. But it also gives you the tools to think for yourself if you allow it to.

Perhaps 'formal' schooling was the wrong word.

I'm thinking some level of post high school education where you wouldn't be throwing around claims without properly researching them or sourcing them(not that I haven't been known to do that very thing myself in the past, even with some post hs education).
It isn't of course absolutely necessary, but it helps.

-
nobody Today 10:25 PM
Okay Sevieb, sorry, Stevieb (lol), given that the absolute best I can say for you is that you're a clueless self-impressed git who somehow just happens to come up with a word-perfect 'how-to' template for pedophocracy disinfo spooks, I'm just going to call it anyway. You are a pedophocracy disinfo spook. Which is to say, you're a paedophile. No need to get cross mate! If you got the game, you may as well have the name. Ha, you turn that saying on its head and it makes more sense than it does the right way round!

And here's the game, (as a Disinfo 101 single-page powerpoint presentation).

- pay no attention to the big picture, nor to myriad examples pointing to it
- stick to a single scandal of your own choosing, and perpetually return to it
- focus on a single aspect of the single scandal and declare that false
- use the alleged falsity of this sliver of a sliver of the big picture to dismiss the whole

E voila! And extra brownie points for blaming the guy arguing the case for the big picture, for the paucity of the case for the small picture. It's the cherry on the sundae that is your genius.

Otherwise folks, I recommend you follow Stevieb's sole suggestion as to google inputs, and actually do a search for 'mcmartin tunnel hoax'. You will be precisely delivered to either: bullshit 'may-as-well-be-mockingbird' journo Debbie Nathan, famous defender of all things paedophilic; or better yet, the 'Institute of Psychological Therapies' run by no less than Ralph Underwager, who, if anyone can remember back that far, I precisely named as a famous paedophile spook. The 'False Memory Syndrome Foundation' and the IPT are the same people, all funded by the CIA and existing for no other reason than to promote paedophilia and defend paedophiles. Thank you Stevieb.

And Stevie, as for you wondering at me having formal schooling - stick to the kiddy raping mate, because you really suck at ad hominem. I'd laugh if it weren't so sickening. If you're going to get ad hominem on someone there's no point fucking around. Thus -

Go fuck yourself you sick piece of shit.



PS. For anyone who's interested, this conversation didn't cease at this point and carried on for some time and can be viewed at the link provided in the first para. Gratifyingly (from an argumentative point of view), Stevieb stayed absolutely true to form the entire time, never swerving from a pedophocracy disinfo line. Indeed his pathetic attempts to dismiss the entire issue as a hoax grew ever more desperate with him repeatedly, and absurdly, linking to the already discredited FMSF and IPT. All up, it was a truly abysmal display and for mine proof positive of the one-trick-pony weakness of the pedophocracy disinfo playbook.

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.

Pilger McGowan Chavez and m_astera.

I suspect that North Americans might not be too familiar with the journalist John Pilger. I'm utterly familiar with him, what with him being a fellow countryman. For mine he's one of the greatest Australians ever. He pretty much tops my list of People Who Aren't Bullshit. I'm a cynical bastard but I've yet to see Pilger set a foot wrong.


Pilger started in Vietnam with his documentary, The Quiet Mutiny. Even now, forty years later, it's still a mindfuck. He makes clear that the Vietnam War didn't end because of the hippy movement, but because the US military was on the verge of total collapse due to widespread revolts and mutinies. The 'fraggings' of officers weren't occasional occurrences, they were well on their way to becoming the norm. But even they were nothing compared to the number of ships and army bases back home that saw complete revolts. For mine, The Quiet Mutiny might just be the only truly anti-war movie ever made. It's not for no reason that you never heard of it, and instead only get served up the usual pro-war anti-war movies.

(And the flipside of this discussion is Dave McGowan's Laurel Canyon series which convincingly posits the hippy movement as a CIA psy-op designed to split the opposition and have everyone stoned and otherwise wasting their time with innocuous shit. Go read it, because afterwards nothing is ever the same again.)

Vietnam aside, Pilger has been everywhere and always with a sharp eye for bullshit. He's never been a stringer, or been embedded, or otherwise run around at someone else's say so. He follows his own nose seeking out injustice and oppression. In this regard he is perfectly catholic. He's covered Palestine, South America, South Africa, Neocons, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Chagos Islands, Timor, the treatment of Australian aborigines, the rise of fascism in the UK, and every time he goes straight to the heart of the matter.

He will never give a platform for motherfuckers to spout their shit. He pins them down and makes them look like the fools, liars, and psychopaths they are. I'll never forget John Bolton tearing off his microphone and stomping out mid-interview pathetically muttering something about 'communist'. Pilger's latest two pieces over at his website about Israel and Palestine are easily the most vicious things I've seen written in the Western Press. And the word 'vicious', when used to describe those seeking the truth is, in my mind, the very highest compliment.

Anyway, there I was in front of the teev and Pilger's brilliant documentary The War On Democracy came on. On Foxtel, believe it or not. It's a perfect primer on the CIA's relentless campaign to crush democracy in Central and South America. We see the smashing of Guatemala, the campaign against Cuba, the death of Allende and the rise of Pinochet, the School of the Americas, on and on. Death squads, torture, massacres, the raping of nuns, the shooting of priests - it's relentless. Members of the CIA actually discuss what they did in terms of it being a 'terror' campaign. They say it, right there on camera, without even a hint of 'Oh shit, did I just give the game away?'


And sure enough, Chavez of Venezuela has his place in The War On Democracy as today's version of Arbenz, Allende, or Ortega. He's another in a long heroic line of democratically elected leaders who are not there to serve a wealthy oligarchic minority. Astoundingly, he's there to serve the sweeping majority who know that without that leader their lives will be an horrific nightmare of fear, deprivation, and death and suffering.

And just like all those who went before him, Chavez is invariably portrayed in the bloc-media as a villain. Back in the day, Arbenz, Allende, and Ortega all had their names blackened by way of the epithet 'communist' - never mind their rejection of communism, their adherence to democratic principles, and the fact that they were wildly popular with all but the tiny oligarchy whose hatred of the masses knew no bounds. Did this newly enfranchised majority get airtime in the US? Of course not. The people of the US got a single message, the message of the motherfuckers. These leaders were communists who 'hated us for our freedom'.

Okay, so that's the current buzzword for Muslims. But it's the lot of the English language to be raped over and over, so that we might shake our fists at those the psychopaths want to throw down. Against all sense and logic, 'Muslim' is now a dirty word. Sure, that's how it works.


How now to portray Chavez? 'Communist' is devalued. No one would buy it. Nor is he a Muslim. So what might they call him? How might they go about blackening his name? And don't be mistaken. They did precisely this every time previously. Because that's how it's done. The CIA has the funds, it has the time, and God knows they have nothing better to do than convince you (yes, you reading now) that it's right that Chavez is a villain who should be brought down.

And now I'm going to break some hearts. Forget the CIA guys in Pilger's doco telling us that, yes, they ran a terror campaign. Whilst it's true that they gave the game away, they also sent us a message. The message is - 'We are ham-fisted and obvious. You can spot us easily. Just look for the guy who is a dead giveaway.'

Thanks CIA! I'll keep it in mind. I'll completely banish from my thoughts the concept that the CIA might be adept as appearing as the very opposite of what they are. Perish the thought that heroic icons of the right-thinking, such as Frank Zappa, Jim Morrison, CSNY, and all those other bards, poets and philosophers, could be spooks. (If you haven't read McGowan's Laurel Canyon, go read it. Sheesh). The CIA could not possibly be clever enough to have those who might otherwise resist their plans perpetually tripping and/or stoned, with the odd moments of sobriety spent endlessly blathering about peace, love, and understanding. (As opposed to taking sledge-hammers to B-52's and that sort of thing).

Yeah, yeah, sarcasm aside, the above is precisely what happened. They manufactured the LSD and we all know it. And Operation Mockingbird, wherein writers, journalists, and talking heads in every branch of the media were suborned into acting as contracted propaganda agents for the CIA, was blown open years ago. There's no excuse for being confused anymore. Sure enough mockingbird doesn't exist now. Not under that name at any rate. But if anyone thinks that the programme to fuck with our minds stopped with the Church commission, or whatever, you're a fool. There is no way in hell that the insane efforts that took place in the fifties, sixties, and seventies aren't taking place right now. It's neither impossible nor unlikely. I declare it as a deadset certainty.

And what would they look like? These efforts to appear right-thinking, to appear poetic, to appear as someone we should revere as Jim Morrison-style wordsmiths of the new age? Would they repeat themselves and form long-haired pop bands and release a bunch of vinyl LP's? Or would they get with the times and hang out on the internet? Ha ha ha - As sure as eggs is eggs!

Don't forget, the point isn't to preach to the converted. They're already preaching to themselves and can be safely left to it. No, the targets will be us, those who dissent. The purpose of the exercise will be a) to push their memes, and b) to disguise it by way of appearing right thinking - the very sort of person we will all admire and think brilliant things of. And regardless of how savvy we think we are at spotting bullshit artists, some of us will fall for it.

And how would I go about it? It's the old 'what would I do if I was a motherfucker' game. Me, I'd start with the big blogs that had the most readership. Places like WRH, AntiWar, Rense, SOTT, CounterPunch, etc. Sure enough, they're not under my control and might see through me and ban me. Oh well, I did my best, time to move on.

Who else gets big readership and is clearly after the truth, and otherwise against the CIA programme? What's the vibe there? How might I fit in? First comes schmoozing. Toujours Le Schmoozing. Also it pays to be active. This is a paid gig so I'd have to earn my dough. Me, I'd make lots of comments and dominate the discussion. There's no point being shy and retiring. I'd have my own blog sure, but it's not so easy dragging people away from blogs run by the truly charismatic. Mostly I'd just be a major presence in the comments.

And of course, I'm going to fit in. There's no point being there otherwise. If I get it right, I'm going to be admired for my beautifully written versions of whatever today's psycho-babble equivalents of peace, love and understanding are. Of course. Ain't no point otherwise. That's the way it was done then and that's the way it is done now. People will be in awe of what I say. They'll admire the beauty of my soul. Or what I show them of it anyway. I will be Jim Morrison, Frank Zappa, and CSNY all rolled into one. And did any of them talk about their spook backgrounds? Of course not.


The trick will be to keep it simple. Not too many memes. Perhaps just one. If I overdid it, I'd give myself away. These people are sharp, remember. So, I just stick with Chavez. He's the purpose of the exercise and everything else is limited-hangout cover. Okay, but how to distinguish myself and otherwise counter savvy people who know a bit of history? The ideal don't-argue would be to live there. Or, more correctly, to be 'based' there. I couldn't pretend since everyone has a hit-counter telling them where the hits are coming from. Fine, I now have the skeleton of 'being-there-and-knowing-what's-what' on which to flesh out my case. Instant credibility and the perfect all-purpose argument, good for whatever.

And besides, it's not like I wouldn't have company. I'd have Company company! Venezuela is crawling with spooks - NAD, USAID, State Dept, you name it. You trip over a gringo there and it's odds-on he's a spook. And me tapping away at a keyboard wouldn't take up too much time, so I'd make myself handy distributing funds, meeting people, organising. These coups don't run themselves you know! It was always this way. Over and over.

Astoundingly hardly anyone would put the obvious two and two together: CIA agents exist; coups happen; CIA agents misrepresent themselves; CIA agents get sent to countries that are the targets of coups; Venezuela is a coup target; I am in Venezuela; I'm a gringo who hates Chavez. But forget that - as if a spook would write as prettily as me?! Impossible! Ha ha ha ha. That's all it takes. Simple simple shit.

Anyway here's the message in case anyone has missed it - Chavez is a communist, a terrorist, a corrupt tyrant, a wicked villain, he hates us for our freedoms, his people hate him, he's banned the media, he's stolen women's kidneys - he is precisely that fellow that we must hate. Won't somebody do something to stop this rampaging monster?

And so it goes. Are we surprised? It was always this way. Go watch The War on Democracy. But don't view it as a discussion of some isolated thing from the past. Plug it into now. Plug it into you and where you're at, right now, today. Because you're it. The propaganda is for you.

Welcome to m_astera.

Rivero and McGowan

Hands up - who likes whatreallyhappened? Thank you. Hands up - who likes Dave McGowan? Thank you. Actually truth be known I have no idea if anyone stuck their hands up or not. I just imagine it. Just like I imagine that far more people stuck their hands up for the former over the latter. No one would be surprised if that were so, would they?


And they're very different creatures these two. Mike Rivero is huge. He's mentioned everywhere. Everyone links to him. And he links to everyone. He's an aggregator, a bit like Reuters. No one would declare him a great writer, but that's okay. Thanks to him and his links I learnt about the USS Liberty and all manner of things.


Dave McGowan on the other hand is a guy almost no one has heard of. I first found him via an obscure google trail that led to an extract from his book Programmed to Kill, which analysed serial killers. It was a mindfucker. I'd never read anything like it. But I went nowhere from there. Perhaps a year later I came across his website and hoovered up everything. And finally, (thanks to Penny), I came across the absolutely extraordinary 'Pedophocracy'. The Pedophocracy is the mindfuck to end all mindfucks.

(I'm going to take it as read that you, yes, you reading here, are familiar with The Pedophocracy. And if you haven't read it yet, for chrissakes go read it, it's not that long)

Me, I reckon that the Pedophocracy is the Rosetta Stone of the wickedness in the world. It is the perfect self-perpetuating mechanism of corruption. It is the ultimate carrot and the ultimate stick. What it offers cannot be had anywhere else. No one who participates in it - no one - will ever spill the beans. Besides, so extreme is its perversity that no one would believe them if they did.

The key thing that strikes one when reading The Pedophocracy is the size of the thing. The last time I wrote about it I was particularly impressed with the CIA, the FBI and the DC metro police all cooperating to shut down the entire investigation into 'the Finders'. But then again, public outrage at government complicity in the Dutroux case in Belgium resulted in a National strike, shutting down the entire country. That's pretty big. Mind you, this was arse-about trumped by the utter lack of any decent response. Only a single guy, Dutroux, went to jail.

But with the Pedophocracy, even the small stuff is big. Let's just take the McMartin case which pivoted on a single pre-school. Under this school was a network of tunnels. Think about that. A network of tunnels is not the kind of thing that could be pulled off by a pervy hobbyist and his buddy. Think of every tunnel you ever heard of or saw in the movies - like The Great Escape. Tunnels are dug by teams of people. Teams, dig it.

McMartin was a single school. The army base child-care scandal spanned the country, from the Presidio to West Point, and every famous base in between. In spite of army officer parents resigning their commissions in disgust, not a single person stood trial for any of this. The army had nothin' to say 'bout nothin' to no one.

And beyond the scale of each of these was the horrific fact that all of them were, in some fashion or another, connected and part of a bigger picture. All of them involved satanistic ritual perpetually featuring fecal matter and animal sacrifice. All of them were grist for the ubiquitous well-funded experts on 'false-memory syndrome' comprised almost totally by 'ex'-paedophiles, or spooks, or both. None of these cases seemed to be of any interest to anyone in the media beyond a blame-the-victim angle. If the investigations weren't farces, the trials were. Most involved no trials at all, in spite of staggering evidence. And then there were the actual connections, as in hard-wired connections with telexes etc. When the DC police busted the Finders warehouse in Washington they found evidence of elaborate communications links and contacts spanning the globe. And a working audio-visual studio. And a sacrificial altar. Belgium looks like nothing special. It's almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the Pedophocracy is FUCKING HUGE.

Hold that thought.

---

I lost count of how many times here I've declared that if one wanted to know who ran the world one need merely look to the media and see who isn't mentioned. The media is the reality machine. If a thing is mentioned in the media then we can all agree that it exists. In this category go things like Al Qaeda, Iraqi WMDs (Iranian, whatever), Arab/Muslim wickedness etc. etc.

As for the flipside, the ne plus ultra thing-that-doesn't-exist is the private ownership of the Fed and every other nation's Reserve Bank. Since this fact is never mentioned we may safely conclude that the people who own the banks own the media. And besides, it stands to reason. Ownership of the money supply only works if no one knows. Were it common knowledge the Fed would be in flames.

Okay, so here we are on the net. We know better. We go to wrh. There, Mike Rivero tells us all about the private ownership of the Fed. Three cheers for him. Now - Can anyone ever remember ever having seen anything about the Pedophocracy, anything at all, on wrh? Or anywhere?

Call me old fashioned but I hit Dave McGowan daily just to see if there's anything new. Like I said, I'm a fan. But it occurs to me that in my daily wandering around on the web that there's the whole rest of the internet, and then there's Dave McGowan. Apart from a few small-timers like Pen and yours truly no one will touch this guy. How is that possible?

And did you hold that thought?

And are you wondering yet?

The Pedophocracy and the Media

God I hate the media. And sure enough, that was the angle I took when I wrote about this topic previously. The point of that piece was to wonder at the nature of the media's discussion of paedophilia. Did you get the gag in that sentence? It was the word 'discussion', ha ha ha. How droll I am. There is no discussion. Well, there might be, but who can hear it with all the high-pitch screaming?


I vaguely concentrated on the media's role in making us hysterical about penny-ante pervies (and particularly a famous non-pervy artist) whilst astoundingly having nothing to say about the plummeting age of pubescence amongst girls. And they do this whilst also encouraging these ever younger girls to dress and behave sexily. It struck me that they were simultaneously debauching the victims, and the victimisers, whilst having the rest of us lose our wits at the prospect of this debauchery. But what did it all mean? And to what end?


Certainly the media desires us all to be fearful. Between toilet germs, appearing uncool in the eyes of teenagers, and those foreigners who hate us for our freedom, there's a lot they'd have us fearful of. But in the fear stakes, paedophiles win. It's every parent's nightmare that their child might be taken. But truth be known - there are paedophiles, and there are paedophiles - if you can dig it.


It seems that lately, the most numerous targets of our fear (certainly in the news) are those sad fuckers with hard-drives full of jpegs and mpegs. Every couple of months there'll be a big bust and dozens of guys will be hauled away. We've no idea if these people ever actually get away from their computers and fiddle with kids for real. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. Who knows? Has anyone heard a 'discussion' by the media about paedophiles who started with computer porn and then progressed into sexual assault? If there were such creatures, could the media pass up an opportunity to crucify them in public?


The other targets are less numerous. They're those sad fuckers who probably don't know how to use a computer and are the traditionalist playground pervies. You've seen these people. The media loves to tell us where they live so we can go and burn their houses down. Keep in mind that the media does not distinguish between the traditionalists and the digitally literate. That's just me. Just like I'm the only guy who'll ask, how many of these old-fashioned street-wandering pervies are there in our communities? Half of fuck-all? Just curious.


Oh yeah. I nearly forgot. There's a third category. These are the basilisks - the monsters of our nightmares - those creatures that beggar the imagination. Like Mark Dutroux. What sets basilisks like Dutroux apart is the fact that he operated as part of a 'network'. Perhaps it was just me, but when the Dutroux story was on the news, I recall saying to whomever I was with, 'How do these guys meet each other?' It's a fair question. Can we imagine a social event where one fellow casually says he spent the weekend kiddy-raping and another fellow says, 'Hey, me too. We should hang out.' The best I could figure was that they might meet in jail. But Dutroux hadn't been in jail and somehow he knew a lot of people. How does this work? What the fuck is going on?


As ever, the man with the answers is the mighty Dave McGowan. Dutroux is not an anomaly. If anything he's a cog in a machine. And it's a big machine and has cogs beyond counting. This child-abduction ring is not only massive, which is to say, global - it is also untouchable. We know this because occasionally a local branch would be busted - Dutroux in Belgium, the 'Finders' in Florida and Washington DC, the McMartin pre-school scandal in New York, military child care centres in the Presidio and West Point, the Country Walk Babysitting Service in Florida, etc, etc, ad nauseam. These were too big for the media to avoid. McGowan follows the trajectory of the media coverage of each of these busts as they slowly but surely sink beneath the waves. With the utmost diligence, the media would ensure that trails were not followed, facts were not uncovered, and questions were not asked. All these stories disappeared with barely a trace. In the media, these rings were not interconnected. There were no links connecting the paedophiles with the local police and government, the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, or the Whitehouse. Same, same, internationally. There were no links between the US and Belgium or any other countries. Like the US News said, in discussing the 'Finders' - "The group's practices, the police said, were eccentric - not illegal.” Story? What story? Apart from some crazy parents led astray by crazy child therapists, nothing happened. None of it ever was.


In the face of this third category it seems like the first two are barely different at all. Fine, let's start again: there's two paedophilias. One's amateur, small-time and the subject of much media screaming. The other is huge, professional, sanctioned, and untouchable. Ideally, never the twain shall meet. Not in real life, not in the media. Further to these differences, the individual sad fuckers we see in the media do not grow their numbers. It's a movement almost completely incapable of self perpetuation, certainly not of flourishing. I'm guessing they'll never go beyond a tiny decimal point of the population. The Pedophocracy is something else. It can reproduce and swell its population. It has defence mechanisms to combat environmental depredations such as getting busted. Provided it stays in the dark, it fears nothing.


The media is an inverse perception machine. The tiny threat is made huge. The huge threat is shrunk down to nothing at all. If you want to know how big the pedophocracy is, you need merely look to its treatment in the media.

Are we suprised? Does any of this differ from other things?
-Muslims, a tiny 'threat', are enlarged into Al Qaeda. Zionists (Who? Aren't they, like, out of fiction or something?) perpetually pop up in all over the globe (Georgia, this week!) and yet seem not to exist. Small threat - Big. Big threat - non-existant.
-Small-time drug users and sellers get busted in huge numbers. Massive sanctioned drug operations, from the Sassoons of yore, to the 'Russian' mafia of today, carry on unconcerned about exposure. Small problem - Big. Big problem - non-existant.
-Taxpayer pennies for welfare mothers is ever the standby bogeyman while the staggering amounts of taxpayer bazillions as interest to privately-owned reserve banks are... are... what? What privately-owned Reserve Bank? Small money - Big. Big money - non-existant.


Is there a pattern here? Sure, of course. But the three examples immediately above make sense in terms of money, power, and geo-politics. Where's the logic in the pedophocracy? What purpose does this huge machine serve? How does raping kids further someone's agenda? Agenda for what? More kiddy raping? What's the point? And why does the media expend energy on the penny-ante end of paedophilia at all? Why not hush it all up? Why are there two parallel paedophilias? Why not have just one and keep it secret?


These are all good questions and I'm glad you asked them. But there are other questions too. Subsequently I've split this thing up into three. Next I'll have a go at the bigger picture of what purpose it all serves. Following that, I'll ask what it means in terms of Charles Darwin. You know the guy - beard, Beagle, behaviour. If a thing doesn't get his tick, it doesn't fly. Does paedophilia get a tick from Darwin? Really?