Sunday, May 7, 2017

Child Brothels

No abnormality goes unrecorded. This universal ledger, this balance-sheet of consciences, is as well-kept as the Bank of France's account of private fortunes. Just as the Bank pricks off the least arrears in regard to payment, evaluates all credits, puts a price on capitalists, keeping an eye on their operations; so does the Police with regard to the public repute of its citizens...No jury would accept [the notes in the universal ledger] as evidence, the country as a whole would rise up in indignation if they were put in at the public hearing of a criminal case. They contain the truth condemned to stay underground, as the truth is everywhere and always. No magistrate could know very well that the courts of assize and of summary jurisdiction conceal half these infamies, which are as it were the nest in which crime is slowly hatched; every magistrate knows well that the Law never punishes half of the outrages and criminal acts committed annually. If the public knew how far the discretion of the Police goes among those of its minions whose memories are long, it would revere these worthy people as it does an Archbishop...The Police are thought to be crafty, Machiavellian, what they are remarkable for is their benignity; all they do is listen to the paroxysmal words of passion, hear what information is laid, take notes and keep them. Only in one aspect is their behavior frightening. What they do for Justice, they do also for the government. In political matters, they are as cruel and as partial as the late Inquisition.
-Honoré de Balzac

News Links

The FBI says it "used malware to take control of" a child-porn network, e.g., was operating and running a child-porn network. As an article in the "media," the temptations are many and damning: society now, particularly on the word-using internet, re-posts the article many thousands of times, saying, "See, I was right." Most major (and minor?) weblogs operate by linking outside articles, and the primary service they provide is not the linking, not the commentary nor analysis, but rather, the sense of expectation that bonds users in communal appreciation of the validation provided by the article, which can be achieved without adding anything, based on pre-existing standards for evaluation that have brought the community together.

Posit an article about an African robbing a convenience store in London and then being tasered during the arrest. Depending on the site where the article is linked, the article has many meanings.

Pro-African site: Like I've always been saying, the police are brutal and unfair. If that had been a white Englishman, he wouldn't've been tasered, just arrested.

Anti-African site: Like I've always been saying, the police are hands-off with Africans. If a white Englishman had resisted police commands like that, he wouldn't've been tasered, but shot.

Pro-Woman site: Like I've always been saying, men plague society with crime and women suffer as a result.

Pro-Man site: Like I've always been saying, women plague society with neediness and male police are needed to restore order, lest that African rape everyone in that neighborhood.

Pro-Woman and pro-African site: Like we talk about every day here, masculinity is toxic, causing Africans to commit crimes and the police to then commit crimes against them, in a vicious cycle of the exercise of white cis masculinity that harms everyone, including not only women intimidated by the robber but women intimidated by the culture of law enforcement.

...and so on. The anodyne character of respectable news is a feature. When we combine bland, dumb, faux-impartial news with low mass intelligence and comparatively high mass communication, we produce a marketplace where a single product can be instantly, often freely customized into hundreds of niche varieties. The media corporations do not need to be specifically pro- or anti- very many things. They are pro- and anti- many things, of course, but their ability to use their platform to be compelling on their own is diminishing, restricted to aging worshipers of the anodyne, while their ability to be compelling to younger people is based primarily on their subsidiary network of modern-day spirit mediums who, by prepared persona, channel news in a specific way by calling attention to it, and thereby giving it meaning.

Juan Blogger and Adolf Blogger and the New York Times can, like chimpanzee DNA versus human, report almost the exact same thing about the Trump Administration's press release on immigration, with seemingly drastically different end results. Their pre-existing personas, and the type of viewer/reader they've previously attracted, fill in almost all the necessary details to make the original product fungible. Juan Blogger's repost means, "Damn that racist Trump." Adolf Blogger's repost means, "Damn that sellout Trump." The NYT's repost means, "Politics is a confusing jumble of compromises and pragmatism which we often do not like due to the interactions of competing selfish groups, many who actually do not read nor trust the NYT if you can believe such a crazy thing as that." All from the same press release. The readers in any case do not require specific analysis; even if they enjoy watching or listening to or reading specific analysis which re-states the persona's take on the article, all they need is the link to know what to think about it based upon their pre-existing subculture.

We've logo-ized ourselves. Rebrand the coffee or the tote bag or the rugged truck from Starbucks to Chevy to Gucci, and people taste different things. Not because the rebranding process proves they're stupid, but because the brand calls upon a pre-existing and very real culture of collective expression. People who've learned a language see things in that language, and their impression is real in its own way.

Example Perspectives

Consider the article linked above. In some sense, this can be considered a defense of Pakistani rapists. The FBI arresting a lot of shadowy internet perverts smacks of white criminals (since African super-hackers tend to only appear on television/movies, not in real life), so the report of this operation could be considered a systematic counter to the notion that rape is an immigrant-related problem in European nations. After all, if white hackers are doing it en masse, maybe they're just as bad as Muslims in Idaho. Lots of good ammo here for anti-masculinists and for globalists. Conversely, lots of ammo for nationalists, too, since there are gangs of way, way more Muslims and/or Mexicans raping kids in plain sight, and no one gives a shit, but then the FBI spent how much money over the course of years focusing on a few hundred internet rapists? "The West" can't deport the Muslims who keep raping little boys in public bathrooms, but they can conduct huge stings on white internet users? Biased priorities which prove selective enforcement of the law, violating the beloved Fourteenth Amendment. And of course, how come there wasn't an investigation a tenth this big into the pizza place, or into the missing Caribbean orphans that Hillary hushed up? Because the FBI was shielding Hillary? If so, only selectively, because the FBI stepped in about Hillary's e-mails to help cement Trump's presidency, but didn't step in about Hillary's having protected that lady who helped some of those orphans leave the orphanage and become used pizza.

Confidence Men

Yes, there is a lot of good fare here. Like always, the FBI's decision to actually act, and then to tell people about that action, is questionable, as well as dishonorable, worthless, and untrustworthy. One of the tacit assumptions we all make when we link and re-link Bank news is that, in some real sense, the event the Bank recounted has actually happened. American intelligence agencies, like honorless dogs from time immemorial, have in addition to proactive fabrications, a long history of lying about successful prosecution of their invisible duties, in order (among many other more important things) to justify getting money. Again, the quest to make Europeans look bad in comparison to Africans pays off: people who believe in, say, nobody-jihadis committing a lengthily and internationally coordinated attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center (implausible), rather than in corrupt billionaires and governments having arranged for some crashes and explosions (plausible), are forced to take their official explanation from the same sources which spied on Martin Luther King, Communist. This, many view, was very wrongful government overreach, evincing an unacceptable attempt to control American politics from the shadows. And yet, the notion of such shadowy overreach now is unthinkable to those same many. Whether or not MLK was a socialist, whether or not invisible Muslims flew the planes in 2001, the ability to, ad hoc, completely trust and utterly scorn the government's consensus on spending and threats and forthrightness, simultaneously accepting the possibility of the impossible, evinces the flaws of the viewpoint (so long as we're thinking about things in a way that we might characterize as "objectively," rather than as part of, like we've discussed recently, a self-redefining mass consciousness, for which it can be true both that thousands of government operatives secretly spied on and manipulated a minority group's religious organization, and that it is impossible for such a thing to have happened in, say, 2001).

At some hypothetical point in a better future society, there might be an honorable organization who can be broadly trusted when it reports that something has been done, but whatever organization that might be, it would not be what we now call "the FBI," nor include a single squirt of the rancid living diarrhea-crusts shaped into bipeds who are now or who have ever merited association with that organization. Even confining ourselves to recent history--say, the current Terran millennium--the FBI has been, at best, a completely unreliable source for information.

By trumpeting or critiquing or blandly noting the information released, we still accept that something pertaining to the narrative inserted into the news happened. Given NATO's increasingly prop-based deception strategy--Colin Powell's demonstrative vial of WMD at the U.N., if you can't believe anything else, is another publicly-, easily-, internet-available demonstration of the knowing use of false material proof--the FBI's claim that it is heroic because it engaged in lengthy, expensive, invisible operations on an invisible internet, is dubious at best. I believe that something like what was discussed in the article happened, but besides being irrelevant, my vulnerability to current dissonance means an external observer should not assume that any of these things are true.

(Ironically, thank god for media resistance to "Islamophobia," without which now-peripheral operations like the fake-WMD-issue might've already been scrubbed from normie-available memories. A tangible memory hole isn't necessary; they don't need to delete records describing how the WTC's structural metal was destroyed before it could be examined, since stupider people have been taught not to see what that means. Even those same people, though, can often remember Colin Powell's speech to the U.N., for the blessing of being anti-racist means [double ironically, as it were] they can still sort-of view a straight cis white male president invading an Arab country and killing little Arab kids as a bad thing. Pending future narrative changes, those same people may view it as an irrelevant conspiracy that the Bush administration brought plastic food to the potluck.)


Yawn, boring, normal--without lobbying for funds, selling child porn, or tracking non-ISIS, non-Congressional (sic) money laundering, the FBI is inert--but in this case, the pretension is that the FBI didn't set up the original child-rape network. Rather, they pretended that the child-rape network was pre-existing, and had simply been taken over by the FBI. An obvious lie, that; the supposed original creators, despite their supposed massive hacking and underground networking skills, supposedly never realized that their site was out of their control, and never warned any of their users, on the "darknet" or otherwise, that their site had been completely taken over. 80-year-old grandmothers can notice when their e-mail accounts get hacked, but the FBI would have us believe that a horde of secrecy-obsessed haxxor darknet villains failed to notice any meddling with their incredibly illegal sites. The trans-dimensional mathematics whereby such an obvious fabrication might actually be true would cover as many blackboards as explaining how the heroic 1980s Mujahideen ended up with western-made RPGs all on their very own, or why ISIS only attacks Saudi Israelia's enemies.

Given these supposedly vast online criminal conspiracies, one might expect the news of a site being accessed by forces unknown to spread like wildfire among a community of savvy perverts...unless there were no outside original creators. With its aforementioned long history of staging false-flags--not the ones that are supposed to be fake according to corporate government, but the judge- and congress-admitted ones where minorities are tricked into becoming part of a terror plot through an undercover agent they met at a bar, who supplied them with everything they needed, including an ideology--and, with its almost-as-long history of storing and selling child "porn" (knowingly administering and profiting from child rape; saying "porn" instead of "rape" is really a rhetorical trick meant to divert attention from the FBI's monstrous actions), the suggestion that the FBI runs child-rape rings is not conspiracy, but accepted in the corporate media as a heroic act. Police perverts have been peeping-tomming at minors and catfishing adults ever since they moved beyond the telegraph, and their stockpile of decades of child-rape pornography was acknowledged prior to the internet. The internet only gave them more opportunities to be themselves. Now, we have official admittance that, as has been long suspected with real crimes--mass murder under auspice of war, mass murder not under auspice of war, election interference, slavery, narcotics, money laundering, et cetera--they are themselves the producers and distributors, not merely the protectors of the producers' regimes.

It once would've been considered very wrong to, say, send U.S. soldiers to assassinate a South American leader who threatened to raid the compound of a wealthy drug dealer who kept child slaves. During the nineteenth, then twentieth centuries, this became a commonplace enough practice that Americans simply shrug and assume, "Yeah, we do bad stuff, but you gotta do something to positively influence politics down there." As with drugs and mujahideen in the 1980s, it is becoming apparent in the 21st century that the U.S. government is a significant source for rape-fodder, not merely the protector of third parties who themselves transfer the children. Similarly, acknowledging that the torture of detainees is delegated to protected foreign countries has gained widespread acceptance, permitting a reduction in secrecy costs by accustoming the public to the notion that Americans perform the torture themselves.

In light of Europe's dark post-Christian history of hereditary monarchs and their court financiers farming peasant stock in order to extract tithes not just of resources, but of immature flesh, the FBI's actions are among the most consistent things available in 2017. The Moon revolves around the Earth, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and secret police organizations are comprised of the sickest elements of any group. The shameful creatures who need to feel part of something, and who like to cause suffering, and to watch other things suffer, but who are too weak, cowardly, or incompetent to patrol the Hindu Kush or make arrests in the Baltimore 'hood; too clumsy or slow-witted to produce a useful product or perform a useful service: these scraps are often drawn to the cesspits of secure torture and bumper-bowling subterfuge that is office-based spying, where they can vindicate their broken souls playing a combination of soldier and sex-dungeon, protected from ever being publicly associated with their actions. The FBI "cooperates with local law enforcement" because they have to, since most of the FBI is soytit NuMales who spend all day in their Uncle Sam's basement getting off to the pained screams of dying children. They keep a few retired SEAL-types on retainer for when they need to click "Yes" to order someone to kick in a door somewhere, but that doesn't represent the organization's fundamental nature.

Through the again-ironic blessings of an anti-white, anti-European-norms perspective, much of this history hasn't been smothered; one can still read not only the persistent "fictional" cultural warnings to peasants to keep their children well-tended and away from evil lords and their sorcerers, but the recurring cultural trend of nobles and their moneylenders taking children in payment of (tax-derived) "debts." Even sources as mainstream as twentieth-century, post-Disney Disney, have recalled these traditions, whether through 1992's Aladdin or 1989's The Little Mermaid (Jafar seeking Jasmine's maidenhood, Ursula seeking Ariel's young blood) or the older, more established princesses' run-ins with metaphorically vindictive brothel madames (Maleficent to Sleeping Beauty, Evil Queen to Snow White, Lady Tremaine to Cinderella). We're in a strange period of overlapping media cover-ups, here, where the attempt to plagiarize European culture into a critique of European culture has left trickles of mainstream-acceptable history that are now slowly becoming unacceptable, such as when peasants worry that treacherous aristocrats are stealing children.

The need to juxtapose evil Euro history alongside heroic Afro history means that some of the background warnings and structural metaphors of Euro history are still available. Popular culture decrees, for example, that rich, pale-skinned businessmen are always evil, except when they're running a pizza restaurant near an orphanage, in which case they are benign victims of harassment. As with feminism proving itself a staged rebellion by its failure to condemn the government kidnapping and rape of girls and women, Afro-centrism proves itself similarly false. We know that ZOG doesn't actually care about women's rights, because it imports Shari'ah; similarly, we know that America isn't actually run for the benefit of blacks, because Somalia is an acceptable NATO DU playground and black Haitian orphans can become fungible gloryholes without any questions asked. As popular memory degrades further, it should prove more baffling to a small percentage of observers, who may see different classifications of entitled victim and righteous underdog change by the minute, rather than by the month or the decade.

(So long as the villains are cartoon-colored in Euro-white, or played by Euro-white men, some of those ancient warnings can slip through to children: beware those jutting chins and forebodingly large noses; beware those rich pale-skins who cooperate with big money. Even comics, even derivative movies based on comics, still retain a touch of these otherwise-forbidden messages from the past, as in the jutting chin and downward-pointed-tip on the nose of Spiderman's nemesis Green Goblin. Ironically, these warnings would not be available in popular culture without the need to add a touch of genuine tradition to the Euro villains who beset the Afro-Mestizo ascendancy. Ergo the Semitic vizier's veneer, added to the European's clothing and skin, can help children of all future races redirect their danger-instincts toward well-dressed white people, instead of to, say, Anthony Weiner or John Podesta. Use the Green Goblin as an image-search reference for those two, and you'll be able to understand how swiftly evolution works. Not only Europeans, but Africans, have an instinctual childhood fear of goblins' features, resulting from a legacy of many years of stolen children and the warning signs thereto. The ability to make those connections is disappearing; they used Angelina Jolie without a mask to further remove traces of history from the composite Maleficent, and they will progressively remove Semitic traces, and replace them with wholly European ones, with each new sequel--at least, until some form of body engineering makes the coverup unnecessary. But for a while, yet, we should be able to see pieces of the conquered culture retained for the victors' use.)

Running the Dungeon

Even if the Lusitania really wasn't carrying arms shipments Reagan never sold Saddam WMD Saddam made extra super-secret WMD after the UN inspectors left years later the story offered by this cartel of depraved child rapists is true, it means that the FBI, to avoid blowing their cover (which they suddenly cared about after the first arrest was made, although not at all after taking over the website from its imaginary original creators), would've had to facilitate the exchange of pictures and movies of kidnapped children being raped and abducted for some period of time. The article suggests a few years from the time the site was controlled and malware implanted to the time the raids began, meaning that the FBI is admitting to the public that it had sound legal evidence of child rape occurring right then, yet waited to act until some pre-ordained time.

This makes (again, again, ad infinitum...) the FBI the literal embodiment of pure evil, but even twenty minutes, even one minute without calling the local police and directing a raid on the site where the first kidnap victim was being raped, is a crime like no other. Discounting all of the things you're willing or not willing to believe that the government has or hasn't done, the open admissions to the newspapers of engaging in the child-rape ring, with video evidence and addresses in-hand, should be sufficient to pass moral judgment. Even if you're so low-functioning that, even after hearing about Snowden on the teevee, you believe the powers who permitted this operation to happen needed warrants to arrest kidnappers when they knew there were detained children being raped onsite, the moral issue retains its relevance. Alternatively, you can do some research on how long it takes the Feds to get a warrant on, say, a medical marijuana facility, or on how much of a damn they give if they want to raid one and can't get the warrant.

How long did X children get raped on camera, watched by the drooling subhumans who fill the FBI, before one of the disgusting little voyeurs decided it was finally time to justify their budget by "acting"? How many children were forever broken, or worse, turned into future FBI agents, while the cardinals of national security decided they needed to see five, ten, or a hundred more child-rapes before it was the right time to move? Even if you completely believe in the honesty and completeness of the news report and of the FBI sources who released it, they've said something worse about themselves than any composite whistleblower, any confirmer of dark suspicions, could. The admission that they operated these child sex-torture dungeons, and through them administered the rape of hundreds (at least) of children on-camera before doing anything to help, is more damning, more cowardly, more wholly noxious, than anything a conspiracist could allege.

The defenses available to their scheme are legion in the time of televised bank heroes. The Bureau might claim that it ran the site for years, rather than only until it witnessed the first on-camera rape, because it needed to catch more criminals, and that this delay was acceptable because of the grim necessities of police work. "Sacrifice one four-year-old in order to ensure that two more are raped, letting us catch three rapists instead of just one." As indecent as such an argument begs to be, it is overthrown by itself, given that, if permitting the rape of one child is permissible when it leads to a future additional conviction, why not operate the site for a week longer; a decade; in perpetuity? The claim's own proudly declared justification for the cruel and usual operation gives itself enough rope to be hanged from.

Why not silently arrest each perp the instant they have evidence, free the child and put it in witness protection, then sock-puppet the perp's continued existence as a community member to trick the others into thinking nothing is wrong? No doubt the FBI would claim it couldn't deceive the criminals that way. If so, then how did their complete takeover of the site not get noticed? From the same mouth, the FBI claims it is both totally competent and all-powerful, and utterly clumsy and powerless. They're so good they can infiltrate the hosting and malware all the users without being noticed, but they can't rescue a child now and then ahead of time without suddenly tipping off all the others and ruining the operation? Lies. "Were you at the Circle K that night or not, Feddie? Why're you looking over there, what's over there; is your friend over there? Wait, you just said you didn't have your gun on you that night. Oh, you were thirsty? Just a minute ago you said you you went in cause you drank too much and you had to piss. Which is it? Why're you looking over there again, I'm right here, look at me, look at me. You know, I'm taking all this down; a jury's gonna hear all this, and they're not gonna buy it." Tragically, the press release is so shoddy because the jurors in this case are such gullible needlings that even the FBI can fool them. I take that back; there's no need to fool them. Just tell them what happened, and bam, that's what happened.

Of course there are other such dungeons being operated in perpetuity by the hellspawn who produced this particular play, but one does not need to suffer the pain of acknowledging the unrevealed in order to perceive what is revealed. As with invading any given place after a false flag, one can believe that faraway bad men killed nearby unwitting men; one can dispute that the false flag was staged, or even disbelieve that it may have been enabled through deliberate clumsiness; one can adopt a bovine air toward the great consensus, and all the sporting and shopping with which it is inextricably linked: one can do all these things, and still question why it is proper to kill X innocents to retaliate for the killing of a prior X innocents. Iraq, 1990, Iraq, 2003, you can believe all of the lies, babies in incubators and hiding weapons in Syria and helping an invisible Muslim pilot get a doctor checkup, and you can still, despite those beliefs, question whether bombing the only water treatment plant for 50,000 kids who then die is acceptable. The stuff they come right out and admit is enough to judge them. Even if you're not able to see that they are hypocrites or liars, the things they themselves say, the version of history they themselves proudly present, make them criminal. Like the arguments for when it is proper to attack a group of civilians in the pursuit of a political goal and when it is not; like the self-imposed crumbling of arguments for genetic irrelevance, chromosomal irrelevance, or behavior irrelevance; like randomly alternating claims that history must or must not impose inheritances of bounty or burden; like the ever-shifting notions of which places or groups or classes may be considered to exist or may not be considered to exist, or which may or may not have collective interests: the foundations of any lie so monumental as to make society just a tiny bit more evil must necessarily contradict themselves.

We see in this absurd malignancy that we have not to fear the advancement of technology's employment in propaganda, nor the paradigmatic evolution of evil as it occurs among the descendants of the last Age's worst scum as they seek a nation's wealth and acclaim for causing infants to be raped on camera. The need of these creatures to sign their works--to show the disgusting horror of their selfmade scars in public, and lavish widespread awareness on their crimes; to be historically credited with what they have done in secret--seems destined to ensure that we will hear of enough of it to know that this is their world. We need not pass from here ignorant of what it was like, even should we join the others in imbibing the daily speech of pure false rhetoric, for even in their proudest lies, they reveal, to those both like and unlike them, who they truly are.

No comments:

Post a Comment