uggabugga uggabugga
* * *

Author Topic: You may now ban me.  (Read 2100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
You may now ban me.
« on: April 06, 2017, 10:48:54 AM »
Hello again, relaxed folks of various sorts. I am posting again about something the mods told me not to discuss after a heated discussion several months ago, to share a video link with you.

Apparently we were wrong about James Alefantis, one person. That debunks "pizzagate," which was a stupid name anyway. The remainder of the ancient elitist child trafficking scandal has been redubbed "pedogate," and is still very much a thing. You all know that wealthy musicians and actors in LA include many pedophiles who have been raping child actors for decades. The many former child actors such as Corey Feldman who have publicly brought attention to their own abuse are merely the tip of the iceberg. This scandal also involves important politicians and other nobility throughout Western Civilization, whose victims are not limited to child actors.

We know that the nobility have been rife with rotten crooks since time immemorial. The violent and perverted actions of nobles such as Henry VIII are a regular feature of history books. Why would we expect a few decades of recent technological advancement to change this ancient societal constant? Many elites have been bragging in detail about their collective illegal depravity in popular music for decades. The rock stars say right there on the radio that hard drugs and human trafficking are a regular part of the high life. Then, when anyone starts accusing specific people, they have the audacity to tell us that anyone suspecting them collectively of illegal depravity are a bunch of deranged conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theorists used to be called "investigative journalists" before the CIA coined the term "conspiracy theorist" to discredit those who challenged the official story. Paul Joseph Watson of Great Britain is one of these investigative journalists, among several who work for Infowars. Here is a video explaining why it is maybe not appropriate to be chill and relaxed at this time. And don't give me any of that "Infowars is fake news" crap. That is called the "ad hominem" fallacy. If a claimant provides solid reasoning and citations, it does not matter how many fake claims they made in the past. Claims must be fairly and separately considered on their own merits. Maybe we should not be so trusting of mainstream news sources. Why do big corporations have a monopoly on the truth?

Wealthy people often do not like each other. Their regular feuding is another constant in the history books. Is it so inconceivable that an ethically-questionable billionaire such as Trump might have a soft spot for children? A luxury resort mogul and TV producer would probably have inside knowledge about the shady stuff going on behind the scenes like every other important person in those circles. Why is that so hard to imagine that such a man would decide, in his old age, to run for president and lock up a bunch of perverted rich fucks out of spite? He already owns private jets and luxury resorts in plural, and his adult children are already wealthy in their own right. What else is he going to do with the money?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1GQehNcZZw

Regards,

Sagebrush

EsmagaSapos

  • Dude
  • **
  • Posts: 16
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2017, 02:42:08 PM »
You need to take it easy man. If there's one thing I'm very positive about is that acknowledgment is baggage, life is much more happy and colorful when you play the ignorant role.

Just take it easy. Get some comfortable 100% cotton paints, a nice white thin sweater and a good robe, sit on your couch, grave the best drink you can think of, buy a good comedy and laugh your ass out. If you have some quiet friends, ask them over.

If that doesn't work, I think you should do what I did long time ago, buy a old voice recorder with a small micro, close all the curtains, turn the lights down, and do what most people do when they can't sleep, say your thought but this time on load voice, try to find what are your deepest problems, say what were your childhood worries and fears. Do basically autohypnosis.

Relax.

MountaineerDude

  • Amateurs
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2017, 04:14:57 PM »
Yeah you get em Sage, man!!! Fuck them rich bastards or whatever you were sayin... or whatever.  Well keep on keepin on brothers!!

Kanantus

  • Dude
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2017, 07:25:48 PM »
Sage, why did you delete so many of your old posts on here?   8)

Also this topic is just like your opinion, man. But I do really love pizza with ham and pineapples.

BikerDude

  • Dude
  • ******
  • Posts: 3209
  • Time wounds all heels -John Lennon
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2017, 10:17:06 AM »
It never ceases to amaze me how common it is for the members of a particular segment of our political landscape to be so transparently effected by an agenda.
I guess along with the "nobility" we should probably add the boys scouts, the Catholic church, college sports and school teachers. Clearly pederasts don't come from any particular segment of society more than any other. Except for the obvious fact that they are drawn to places with children.

I've heard prejudice described as a mental virus and I have to say that the way that some people process information sort of describes this idea to a tea. It amazing to watch how certain "nut job" websites and news outlets manipulate this tendency. By defining a constellation of unrelated pieces of information you can move people to adopt the most far reaching prejudiced world views imaginable. Somehow Cory Feldman's story is an indictment of a huge swath of the populace and it's the tip of the iceberg of something that reaches back through the ages involving none other than Henry the eighth. It's really astounding to watch.
And it's funny it is always so specifically targeted towards places where the predominant political leanings are toward the left. This either because liberals are bloodthirsty pederasts bent on the destruction of decent society or because the message is coming from the right. I guess this is the "game" but people actually become true believers through this crap. A guy actually showed up at the pizza parlor with an AR15. Get your fucking head around that. And I pretty much guarantee that the guy was a blue collar fellow who had been completely enlisted to the cause of the "nobility" as though he was little more than a trained chimpanzee.

Personally I like to believe what  I believe for actual reasons. As a person who considers myself squarely independent I don't champion or criticise either brand of bullshit. But it is amazing how easy it is the create alternative realties through the use of what amounts to propaganda and yellow journalism. You don't need the truth you just need to hint at things.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 10:32:01 AM by BikerDude »

Out here we are all his children

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2017, 12:18:23 AM »
I don't have a problem with liberals. I am a liberal. I support the Nordic model. Many liberals support libertarianism. These two viewpoints are the same ideology except with respect to amount of taxation and government services. Some want the small happy meal, some want the super size quarter pounder meal. Both want a burger, fries, and a drink. With respect to personal freedoms, national sovereignty, and most importantly, being totally opposed to Islam, the viewpoints are the same. Both viewpoints are opposed to restricting one's right to "do as thou wilt' except when one infringes upon the rights of others. Islam infringes upon the rights of non-Muslims. Christianity does not, or at least does not do this nearly as much.

The founders were liberals. Thomas Paine was a liberal. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal. The Democrats (that is, their politicians, not their deceived voters) are not liberals. They are the party of war, corruption, surveillance, and totalitarianism, that is, fascism. They jail political dissidents under the guise of the drug war in exchange for kickbacks from the drug cartels and the private prisons. That is to say, the Democrats do the same fascist things that the Republican political class does. Regardless of the global warming question, the current powers that be cannot be trusted to fix the problem. They will just embezzle the green energy money through various forms of graft like they always do, which is counterproductive for the environment. The Paris Accords are worthless, toothless toilet tissue. Government accountability, national sovereignty, and the rule of law must be restored first before we can even start addressing pollution. Embezzling in the name of green energy does nothing to help the planet. We environmentalists had to join with the libertarians to elect a skeptical usurper to make it possible for the climate issue to be productively tackled eventually at all.

It is true that pedophilia and other forms of sexual violence are widespread throughout society. The problem is not that the wealthy elites are any more predisposed to such behaviors as everyone else. The problem is that the law does not apply to the wealthy elites, whereas the rest of us have to face consequences for our actions if we are caught. Jeffrey Epstein operated a child sex slave orgy island, a deeply-abusive and violent activity, was convicted for it, and served 18 months in jail (later reduced to 13 months) for his actions. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton routinely flew to said island on the "Lolita Express," Epstein's private jet, as is recorded in his logs. Anyone else would have served multiple life sentences or faced execution for the same crimes, but because Epstein is rich, well-connected, and pimped kids to fellow wealthy and influential people, he got away with a slap on the wrist. This corruption is not limited to sexual matters. The executives of Wells Fargo operated a huge scam whereby they had their own employees routinely set up false bank accounts for their customers and then charge the customers fees for those fake accounts. The executives then fired 5000 employees and Wells Fargo got fined, once they were caught, but those executives faced no personal consequences for ordering those actions. We must restore the rule of law so that, when people of all classes commit egregious harms against others, they face justice for their actions. This is the only way that we can have government that is responsive to the will of the people and actually fixes the problems, such as climate change, that they are directed to solve.

iAbide81

  • Dude
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • I am the walrus
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2017, 02:07:09 AM »
I'll tell you what I find completely ironic and sad. I'm a sexual assault survivor. I don't buy into PizzaGate as far as the Hillary Clinton and John Podesta are behind a child sex trafficking ring operating out of Comet Ping Pong aspect. Yes, I'm aware child sex trafficking exists and I'm absolutely against it. But because I've voiced my opinions against the PizzaGate theories and pointed out there's no substantial evidence to back up any of the claims, people call ME a pedophile or a pedophile sympathizer, not knowing my background or any of my other opinions.

Wacky, right?

jgiffin

  • Dude
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2017, 10:50:26 PM »
That's insane. You require evidence to support propositions? What are you, some kind of fascist?

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2017, 12:34:27 AM »
I linked to a wiki that provides the evidence you wanted back when I brought this up the first time. The name we chose originally was crap. Now we call it pedogate. But the pizzagate wiki is what was originally registered, so that is where the list is. I remind you all that I figured this out independently, albeit on less-convincing evidence, before Alex Jones or the reddit community started talking about the matter, before the Podesta emails were leaked, before Alefantis was on anyone's radar, and before the matter was christened with its stupid food-name. I did not bring up the matter to the community myself at the time because, like you say, one should have convincing evidence on hand before going public with a claim. So, disagree with me if you like, even angrily if you want, but please be angry at me, personally, as an original claimant, not as a duped victim of the original claimants. I am an academic, not some sort of sheep that just goes along with whatever tinfoil-hat fake conspiracy, such as the Trump-Russia collusion claims, that comes along.

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2017, 01:03:02 AM »
Kanantus: I deleted those posts during the 2016 US electoral season. Hillary Clinton's candidacy was a clear and present existential threat to humanity, as evidenced by her and her husband's long and sordid history of corruption, incompetence, and crimes against humanity, her direct warmongering towards Russia and Iran, and the delicate situation produced by the mutually-assured destruction geopolitical doctrine regarding WMD's. Also, our own government's long complicity in most of the violence in the world's equatorial regions as a result of the War on (Enabling CIA Trafficking of) Drugs was becoming increasingly apparent to me. So, I was a bit stressed out at the time, and said and did some things, such as needlessly deleting a bunch of posts, that did not make sense. This stress is slowly abating as the current administration seems to be making rapid and refreshingly-violent progress on wrapping up the problems, such as ISIS and North Korea's nuclear weapons, that our country has caused, in collaboration with our nascent allies Russia and China, who were previously moving towards allying with each other to make war against us.

Kanantus

  • Dude
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2017, 08:33:00 PM »
Kanantus: I deleted those posts during the 2016 US electoral season.

Okay.... that's cool but my concern here is that it does make reading old forum threads harder (especially if they were made by you) since context is gone with your replys missing. So if you could avoid doing that in the future (removing posts) then it would be much appreciated.  :)

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2017, 11:09:46 AM »
Well, yes. I did say that it was a nonsensical action due to stress. Senile, psychopathic old Clinton, whose husband, back in the '90's, gave North Korea the nuclear reactor with which they made the nuclear bombs that they are currently threatening us and our allies with, was about to get us all killed in nuclear war with Russia by direct implication from her stated foreign policy positions, after all. That's a bit stressful. But you are correct that I shouldn't have let myself lose my cool while helplessly watching my beloved, brainwashed fellow academics fervently demonstrate, as I was doing alongside them for most of the election season, in favor of the literal end of human civilization. We wouldn't want the looming end of the world to screw with the legibility of the Dudeism forums now, would we? That would be terrible.

SagebrushSage

  • Dude
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2017, 11:52:44 AM »
Ah, nevermind. Scratch that. Ol' Bill, instead of bombing NK's existing reactor as was originally proposed, arranged to replace that reactor with a type of reactor, two of them, that does not produce enough plutonium to be useful for bomb-making. Of course, that provided NK with the political means to import uranium, which they used to make their current stash of bombs. You don't have to do anything to uranium to make bombs except isolate the fissile isotope with centrifuges, which are just very precisely built spinning cylinders. Clinton's 1994 agreement said that we would provide them with fuel oil to replace the power loss from replacing the larger nuclear reactor with smaller nuclear reactors. We could have just, you know, banned uranium imports to that country and given them enough fuel oil to keep the lights on instead.

So yes, the 1994 agreement did include an agreement to build nuclear reactors in NK. But the nuclear reactors are not what enabled NK's current weapons stash. So I was wrong on that point. You do not need a nuclear reactor to produce uranium bombs; just centrifuges and uranium. You can't prevent NK from building a bunch of spinning cylinders in some bunker. Hiding such a project is easy. All you can do is prevent them from getting uranium. That was the only way to stop them from making bombs. Since Clinton signed into international law their ability to import uranium for the next two decades, thereby enabling them to make nuclear weapons, Bill Clinton is responsible for the current North Korea situation. And we almost elected his dear wife and co-conspirator into the office of the presidency.

You can't stop countries from building centrifuges discreetly. If Bill Clinton had not provided North Korea with uranium, they would not have been able to make nuclear weapons. The 1994 agreement Clinton signed was the key enabling factor behind the current NK situation. Preventing plutonium production, the goal of the 1994 agreement, was never sufficient to prevent proliferation, as we would have known because of our successful bombing of Hiroshima with a __uranium__ bomb. These facts are obvious. Therefore, the 1994 agreement's, and therefore, Clinton's, purpose must have been to enable North Korea to build nuclear weapons. The NK nukes are the single most dangerous problem on Earth. Therefore, we cannot trust Hillary Clinton, or anyone else closely associated with Bill or Hillary Clinton, such as any a Democrat politician, with anything whatsoever, especially not the presidency. These are all documented, scientific, historical facts. I was right to be concerned. Prove me wrong.

PriorRestraint

  • Dude
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2017, 06:49:41 PM »
Hey SagebrushSage,
A few times you've mentioned being an academic. What kind of academic are you, out of curiosity? I've spent some time in that world...

Kanantus

  • Dude
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
Re: You may now ban me.
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2017, 05:20:13 PM »
That's cool and I'm sure the Clintons can die without feeling like the good Lord gypped them.  8)

 

Recent Posts

Store

Dude Vinci
Get Dudeism tee shirts, ordination certificates and more. Help feed our monkey.
Click Here

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 16, 2017, 01:43:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recently Posted

Winter Solstice
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 52368
  • Total Topics: 5998
  • Online Today: 70
  • Online Ever: 378
  • (May 10, 2017, 05:23:00 PM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 50
Total: 50

Like the Dudeism forum?


Or use this button: