B
Baccarat
Zen Gardner, yes I always get those two websites confused...
Pizzagate. Plus, Ex-FBI Undercover Agent Bob Hamer |357|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
David Eire
New
On the subject of Haiti and the Clintons some of you might find these interviews interesting
Èzili Dantò is a Haitian woman who was the lawyer for Jean-Bertrand Aristide at one time
Èzili Dantò is a Haitian woman who was the lawyer for Jean-Bertrand Aristide at one time
AryaS
Member
Sorry, but I don't even know what you are saying. Are you also agreeing that "trafficking" simply means moving people from one country to another -- and could be for beneficial/humanitarian purposes? I also have no idea what you mean by the Trump/Hilary stuff. I'm not a Trump fan, so really have no idea what your point is.
Dakota Rider
Member
She was "doing her thing" with a callous disregard for the parents of the kids and the laws of the countries she was working in. There is a market among Christian households for poor, disadvantaged young kids to adopt. The Christian adopters think they're doing a good thing, and probably Silsby thinks she's doing a good thing. It's one of those aspects of the Christian right that I think is terrible. I think the Clintons got involved because they're trying to placate the Christians in this country, people who want to do the right thing but only get part of the story from their Christian rumor mill, when they heard about the story of this "unfortunate lady who was just trying to help but got caught up in the gears of government red tape."
That very paper you linked to defines it!
It says:
You should really read the documents that you link to thinking they support your point.
malf
Member
It could be for all sorts of purposes. Nefarious, misguided, or otherwise. But I was referring to the totality of your argument not just this point; it is conclusion led.
Forgive me. Your personal leanings looked to be clear by the propaganda you bleat, but perhaps you are just a bit gullible. The fact that you hadn't referenced your president's friendship with Epstein and his trips on the 'Lolita Express' appeared to be a motivated 'blind spot' too.
AryaS
Member
.
My "argument" at the post you referenced, was simply in response to Dakota's suggestion that "trafficking" can mean simply moving people out of a country illegally. "Human trafficking" has a commonly understood meaning, and it is often for sexual exploitation, although there is also organ trafficking and labor exploitation trafficking too. "Trafficking" generally doesn't mean smuggling kids out of a poor country to place them with loving adoptive parents. Perhaps that's why the author of the Harvard article herself used two words -- "smuggle" and "traffic" to denote two completely different things. And noted that the court did not resolve which one Ms. Silsby was actually attempting to do.
As for your "clarification" that you were really referring to the "totality of [my] argument" -- I'm still unclear. What conclusion am I starting with -- and what propaganda am I offering in support? That child sex trafficking and ritual abuse exists? Are you denying that? That Pizzagate is more than a political witchhunt? I know your position on that -- and I disagree. I also offered to discuss the circumstantial evidence with you after you threw down your bluff/gauntlet, and you ignored my post. I noticed you did respond to Hurmanetar's post -- and even conceded that there was some basis for a circumstantial case....so again, I'm unclear on your point here.
Yikes -- you are completely mistaken on my personal leanings -- or my blind spots. WJC, HRC and DJT have all enjoyed rides on Epstein's Lolita Express. High-level pedophilia has no singular political affiliation. I'll agree with you that Trump is an international embarrassment, but you are truly delusional if you think all the dirt about HRC is just a "right wing conspiracy." I don't think I'm the gullible one here.
Dakota Rider
Member
It did in that report you linked to. You used that report to show that Silsby was involved in "trafficking." But that report defines illegally moving kids out of a country for the purpose of adoption as "trafficking" and makes it clear that's what they were talking about.
It seems to me that you were wanting the report to show that Silsby was involved in pedophilia trafficking, based on what you assumed they meant with the word, even when they explicitly said what they meant and that wasn't it.
iPsoFacTo
New
Yeah, popular culture would give the word trafficking a very very bad connotation. However, as worded in the laws of countries could mean 'moving about'. I'm assuming this from life experience
It's kinda like pedophelia is used popularly as any sex with whatever local legal systems deems underage....usually 18, at least in the usa. However, as I understand, pedophelia true meaning has to do with prepubescent children.
Please correct if I am off definitions :)
It's kinda like pedophelia is used popularly as any sex with whatever local legal systems deems underage....usually 18, at least in the usa. However, as I understand, pedophelia true meaning has to do with prepubescent children.
Please correct if I am off definitions :)
Last edited:
iPsoFacTo
New
BTW, if you talk about satanism, don't you first need to figure out what kind of satanism you're talking about? There's the 'modern' evil satan....iow, the evil being known today via centuries of the churches constant revisionism and molding of the name to suit its own agenda.... and the satan who apparently started off as pals to jesus/god and was granted dominion over earth (a kinda gift pals would give to each other) and in some circles worshipped (still) more as a 'nature' entity than an evil one?
Last edited:
AryaS
Member
Ok, yes, I agree that the definition of "trafficking" can more broadly include stealing children/babies for illicit adoption channels. But the author of the Harvard journal article specifically distinguishes between the two: "The pressing issue—whether Silsby intended to deliver the children into trafficking rings or grey adoption markets—was not addressed or resolved." So the author (and presumably the court) both appear to be distinguishing between the two types of illicit smuggling activities, "trafficking rings" (which yes, I take to be generally for sexual exploitation, given the statistics on child sex trafficking, particularly in devastated or war-torn areas) or "grey adoption markets" -- noting that it was not clear or resolved as to which one Silsby was actually attempting. If "trafficking" means the same as smuggling for grey adoption markets, why distinguish?
The article also mentions that Silsby tried to steal 40 other kids prior to the 33 she got caught with but was turned away due to lack of proper documentation. I guess that could be consistent with some fanatic Christian nutter who won't give up, but given her connection to a known/wanted human trafficker, and the interest/intervention of BC/HRC, you might be open to the possibility that there is more there.
iPsoFacTo
New
Questions I have. The article you cite seems more an opinion piece. IOW, the phrase, "The pressing issue—whether Silsby intended to deliver the children into trafficking rings or grey adoption markets—was not addressed or resolved"..... is more an opinion statement than what issued by the courts, no?
Second.... as you say, having proper documentation in countries in chaos that even in the best of times presumably engage in all sorts of idiotic, arcane, corrupt and dictatorial bureaucratic nonsense, I suppose it's not farfetched to be running afoul of those things.
Hey, I'm just asking. :)
AryaS
Member
Yes, the court in that case ultimately decided that no abduction/trafficking was proven because the parents had technically given away their children (most of whom were not, in fact, orphans) voluntarily (even though they were duped into thinking their kids would be taken care of and returned to them eventually). So a substantive decision against Silsby was not reached.
But the dangers of child sexual exploitation/trafficking in countries devastated by war or natural disasters is well-documented by a number of NGO's and UNICEF.
iPsoFacTo
New
Thanks
Booooooiiinnngggg... complete non sequitor but yet still apropos to how things get phrased cuz this reminded me of something...
When the economy collapsed in 2008, the republican citizenry yakkity yak on the internet placed most of the blame solely on people in the lower income bracket 'greedily' applying for loans they couldn't afford via shady predatory loan practices. I will interpret them wanting to do so as a natural reaction to being fed the 'american dream', and given an opportunity to climb aboard despite the consequences, (iow, typical human behavior) they took advantage.
Back to Haiti. Similarly, now we have poor people in desperate circumstances being fed a certain promises and getting screwed. However, the difference being that the blame here is not placed on the parents (ie, the ones taking out loans) by sending their children away, but rather the ones perpetrating the means to do so. The opposite of the former situation. There's a moral here somewher, lol
What can I say, I had a few beers, lol
P
Philemon
Well, I've had a few beers myself just now, and I've got to say, it seems like some folks are being obstinate in their refusal to admit there is something really screwy about this whole mess. If you look at all the pieces of this puzzle - screw the conversation about whether they all fit into the bigger picture some people have tried to make of it - and you deny that some of those pieces are deeply disturbing at face value, I don't know what kind of productive conversation can be had about this.
I know a guy who was adopted as a young child. I grew up with that guy and was very close friends with him the whole way from preschool to high school graduation. I spent numerous days and nights over the years staying over at my friend's house and in close proximity to this man. A few years after high school graduation, my friend suddenly remembered being being chronically sexually abused by his own father. It has totally fucked him up. He is no longer the guy I knew growing up. It is terribly sad. I did not know at first what to make of the whole thing. I never had (from what I can remember) any kind of bad experience with his father, and when my friend shared with me what he did, I only half believed him. I wondered how I could have been around him so many times without any inappropriate behavior displayed toward *me* as he had many opportunities. I also thought at the time that "repressed memories" was basically a concept that uncredentialed hypnotists promoted in order to grant themselves authority they didn't earn through legitimate means.
Later, the father did something VERY similar to one of the cases discussed by the FBI agent in this episode in terms of going on an exotic trip to have sex with boys. Not long ago he was apprehended by the feds and is now in prison and will likely die there. So, clearly, what my friend claimed was spot on.
The man had a certain kind of public face he put on which is very, very different from the private one he displayed toward his victim(s).
Takeaway point: This stuff goes on. There is something really unusual about the way it manifests itself sometimes - with people genuinely not remembering what has happened to them until some trigger blows them wide apart. The people doing this stuff are not the people you might immediately think would be the kinds to be doing it. This guy was crafty. Hopefully I don't suddenly remember a bunch of awful shit that he did to me. That said, there are certain kinds of trauma people can enact on one another that apparently run so deep that it truly is buried. At least for a time.
iPsoFacTo
New
I had this book once... 'Michele Remembers'. What I remember, lol, it had been torn apart as fiction more or less. I confess I do find repressed memories odd past a certain age.... I'm thinking after the brain develops enough..... 4... 5 yo ??
What I do know is that at some point I do question some memories of my own as being whether they actually took place or were dream memories for example.
Without delving into the science of it and of which I am admittedly ignorant, I do find it hard that such trauma would in fact burn the memory of those events rather than hide them
I don't have kids but I recall that when my sisters kids were in that less than 5 -6 year old range if I asked a question and led with nodding my head a yes or a no, they'd follow suit. I could be nodding my head 'yes', then they'd nod yes and as I switched to nodding 'no', they nodded no.
What I do know is that at some point I do question some memories of my own as being whether they actually took place or were dream memories for example.
Without delving into the science of it and of which I am admittedly ignorant, I do find it hard that such trauma would in fact burn the memory of those events rather than hide them
I don't have kids but I recall that when my sisters kids were in that less than 5 -6 year old range if I asked a question and led with nodding my head a yes or a no, they'd follow suit. I could be nodding my head 'yes', then they'd nod yes and as I switched to nodding 'no', they nodded no.
Last edited:
David Eire
New
In the case of the sub-prime loans it was US domestic economic policy and an unregulated predatory banking system that was primarily at fault
In the case of the Haiti situation it is US foreign policy and predatory human traffickers
In the case of the Haiti situation it is US foreign policy and predatory human traffickers
AryaS
Member
I have wondered about recovered memories too but do think it's possible to compartmentalize like that -- isn't that what MKUltra and projects like that were/are all about? When the child is living with or experiencing severe abuse by an adult that is close to them or in charge of them in some way -- so that escape seems unlikely/impossible -- the child probably feels they have no choice, or it's just so painful to accept what is happening, so they just block it/tuck it away. Then later when they are in a "safer" place, the memories are allowed to come flooding back. Some writers who have written on childhood sexual/ritual abuse have concluded that one of the main reasons that the elites abuse their own children is to fragment/compartmentalize certain aspects of their personality and rewire their brains through trauma. Jason Horsley writes about this and claims to be himself from an aristocratic UK family that may have engaged in or been witness to this type of abusive conditioning.
Now I think I'm going to need a beer!
iPsoFacTo
New
Might I suggest 'Steel Reserve' ... 8.1% content. My bandmate's wife calls it 'bum juice'. Cheap and to the point. Don't taste bad at near freezing temps, lol
Last edited:
Dakota Rider
Member
Let's all have a beer and relax for a while. A fine American IPA sounds nice.
Jim_Smith
New
I try to look at his sources. Sometimes he has stories or guests you don't see anywhere else. I can't watch the show live, but some of the clips on youtube I find interesting.