WikiPedia is a liberal dominated resource and anything controversial is brigaded to alter entries to suit vested interests. Witness scrubbing of David Seaman;s entry because he spoke out against PizzaGate
This is ignorant. The ancient Greeks didn't worship sexual perversion pedophilia or rape. They identified the procreative and sexual urges in all beings and personified it through a male god of nature named Pan, as they personified many human urges into gods and goddesses. Pan was also the god of wine and of loosing one's senses to the ecstacy that intoxication can bring. The ancient Greeks didn't believe in "demons" and therefore Pan can not be described as "demonic" unless you are coming at it from solely a Christian, and thus limited, viewpoint.
Centuries later the word "pan" came to be used IN ENGLISH to mean "all" (example - pan-Hellenic) as well as "chaos" (example - panic).
Satanism and Lucifer worship is a phenomenon specifically TIED TO CHRISTIANITY as you cannot have God without having a Devil in the Christian viewpoint. Satanism is worshiped through an inversion of the Christian mass in a ritual called Black Mass which inverts Christian symbolism and celebrates the fallen angel Lucifer as the usurper of heaven.
One is a joke from a guy making an Old Testament reference. It's like if some 4chan dork says he's going to sacrifice kids to Kek, do you take him literally and think he's a pedo?
One is a perfectly innocuous email about a family-friendly get together, that no one would ever have thought was about a grandma offering her grandkids to be raped if they hadn't been presented the email in the terms of "look at this pedo email". It's funny you bring up Occam's Razor because that would, of course, tell you that there is no implied meaning and you should take it at face value. She thinks her grandkids are as entertaining to others as to herself, as most parents and grandparents do.
The third appears to be an inside joke. My guess is that it means exactly what he says, perhaps on a previous occasion (drunk?) they tried literally playing dominoes on pasta. If you replace the words with whatever pedo code you like to imagine, it still wouldn't make sense anyway.
I do not believe there is any reason at all to think Podesta is a pedo.
To answer the question, I think it's important that there is at least one voice in your echo chamber telling you how delusional most of you are and how absurd your "evidence" is.
I have no reason to think that 100% of this is not bullshit and confirmation bias.
fair enough but we all know that Wikipedia is disinfo and the powers that be have armies of contributors who are creating a new reality by altering wikipedia entries to fit their agenda. There is a long history of people personal profiles being scrubbed of scandals, or people being caricaturised with disinfo. Just put PizzaGate into Wikipedia and tell me Wikipedia is reliable. Its a rewriting of history and all information to suit agendas of people with the resources to manipulate it as a tool
I know Pan is the drunken degenerate god and given that being a degenerate in those days, when sex with your mothers/daughters wasn't seen as abnormal, is a pretty high bar.
If anyone wants a more in depth explanation for what Pan (i.e. Baphomet) represents, here are a couple resources. James Alefantis is far from the only person who references Pan; you see these references fairly regularly in occult circles. And yes, many of the occult groups that reference Baphomet say questionable things that are on par with what you see in pizzagate.
Do you have any evidence to prove me wrong? You may as well adopt the strategy of the MSM and accuse me of making fake news. At 4:08 in the video I cross-reference Albert Pike's work with that of Eliphias Levi to argue the connection between Pan and Baphomet. Both of these men were prominent occultists that continue to be influential.
I'm not going to watch your video. If you bring up anything other than did the article, I humbly request you explain it in text.
Regarding the Vigilant Citizen link, I find this article insufficient evidence for the following reason, noted in the article itself:
Since gaining widespread recognition in popular culture, the image of Baphomet is now used as a symbol of anything regarding occultism and ritualism.
...
After centuries of myths, hoaxes, propaganda and disinformation on both sides of the spectrum...
...
Baphomet became, depending of the point of view, a representation of everything that is good in occultism or everything that is evil in occultism. It is, in fact, the ultimate “scapegoat”
I see nothing more than superficial coincidences, like having horns, linking these deities of vastly different domains across thousands of years. Pan is an old fertility god. Most likely far older than even the classical greeks. Pan is associated with the phallus... as are half of these greek deities. And I see no references about pedophilia.
Does Alefantis associate Pan with Baphomet? Maybe. Who knows what faux-beliefs he has? But because there's no link from Pan to Baphomet, him liking Pan does not prove anything.
And even if Alefantis was tied to Baphomet... or even came out and said "I love Satan," that's not illegal. It's just more circumstantial evidence suggesting child abuse to add to the pile.
I'm not going to watch your video. If you bring up anything other than did the article, I humbly request you explain it in text.
Logical fallacy: refusal to acknowledge conflicting evidence. I even directed you to the part of the video to skip to. It will take 3 minutes to watch tops.
Everything else
Logical fallacy: strawman argument. The links I provided in the original comment were to argue two overall points:
1.) That Pan and Baphomet are synonymous in modern occult circles
2.) What Baphomet represents
You argued against the first point by using evidence that existed to prove the second point.
Logical fallacy: refusal to acknowledge conflicting evidence.
I'm not refusing to acknowledge conflicting evidence, I'm refusing to add to your view count. I've spent time on writing (and rewriting) this text, surely you can return the favor, if you indeed have anything new to say which the article did not already.
Logical fallacy: strawman argument.
Not really a strawman but OK, I'll address your concern:
You argued against the first point by using evidence that existed to prove the second point.
I'm fairly certain that how you intended to use your evidence has itself no bearing on the logical validity of how I choose to use it.
I'll try and spell this out a little more clearly:
Pan and Baphomet are not synonomous in modern occult circles. This is because there is no such thing as a single 'modern occult circle'. (this is actually a strawman, fyi). As the article suggests, modern occult practices are varied. There is no universally true link from worship of Pan to worship of Baphomet. Occultists will essentially use whatever they think is cool, and will adopt whatever symbols they feel like, even if the historical use of a symbol is completely contrary to their aims. Even if Pan and Baphomet have a connection in one occult circle, they may not in another (for no reason). Therefore, just because Alefantis likes Pan, does not necessarily imply he likes Baphomet. And since Pan doesn't even have historical pedophillic significance, it implies nothing about whether or not Alefantis is a pedophile.
And, let me say it again, even if Alefantis came out saying he liked Baphomet himself, because occult practices are so varied with little rhyme or reason, it is not proof he is a pedophile. In his brand of occultism, maybe Baphomet does represent pedophilia, maybe he(/she) doesn't. Even if he did like Baphomet, that is not proof of anything. It is more circumstantial evidence, which is not actual evidence.
(And as evidence taken by itself, him expressing sympathy with Baphomet does not even necessarily imply he is an occultist. Baphomet is common knowledge to many people. To common person, who has only a brief familiarity with Baphomet and has only heard he(/she) is a symbol of enlightenment, being associated with true knowledge certainly doesn't sound like a bad thing to like. Of course, this is all a hypothetical comment, so it doesn't matter)
I made a reply in a word document with a transcript for the video along with links to all of the source material, but Voat isn't letting me paste that comment into here. I'll try to get it up when Voat lets me.
RedGreenAlliance ago
WikiPedia is a liberal dominated resource and anything controversial is brigaded to alter entries to suit vested interests. Witness scrubbing of David Seaman;s entry because he spoke out against PizzaGate
VieBleu ago
This is ignorant. The ancient Greeks didn't worship sexual perversion pedophilia or rape. They identified the procreative and sexual urges in all beings and personified it through a male god of nature named Pan, as they personified many human urges into gods and goddesses. Pan was also the god of wine and of loosing one's senses to the ecstacy that intoxication can bring. The ancient Greeks didn't believe in "demons" and therefore Pan can not be described as "demonic" unless you are coming at it from solely a Christian, and thus limited, viewpoint.
Centuries later the word "pan" came to be used IN ENGLISH to mean "all" (example - pan-Hellenic) as well as "chaos" (example - panic).
Satanism and Lucifer worship is a phenomenon specifically TIED TO CHRISTIANITY as you cannot have God without having a Devil in the Christian viewpoint. Satanism is worshiped through an inversion of the Christian mass in a ritual called Black Mass which inverts Christian symbolism and celebrates the fallen angel Lucifer as the usurper of heaven.
FormerBaltimoreRes ago
You caught the shill, good work.
comeonpeople ago
I don't think there is any code.
One is a joke from a guy making an Old Testament reference. It's like if some 4chan dork says he's going to sacrifice kids to Kek, do you take him literally and think he's a pedo?
One is a perfectly innocuous email about a family-friendly get together, that no one would ever have thought was about a grandma offering her grandkids to be raped if they hadn't been presented the email in the terms of "look at this pedo email". It's funny you bring up Occam's Razor because that would, of course, tell you that there is no implied meaning and you should take it at face value. She thinks her grandkids are as entertaining to others as to herself, as most parents and grandparents do.
The third appears to be an inside joke. My guess is that it means exactly what he says, perhaps on a previous occasion (drunk?) they tried literally playing dominoes on pasta. If you replace the words with whatever pedo code you like to imagine, it still wouldn't make sense anyway.
I do not believe there is any reason at all to think Podesta is a pedo.
comeonpeople ago
To answer the question, I think it's important that there is at least one voice in your echo chamber telling you how delusional most of you are and how absurd your "evidence" is.
I have no reason to think that 100% of this is not bullshit and confirmation bias.
wellington33 ago
Fuck, now im thinking about Peter Pan and Neverland...
wellington33 ago
http://archive.is/mm2q5#selection-139.918-139.993 Remember folks, pan is the demonic pagan god of sexual perversion and rape.
comeonpeople ago
What question is that?
Rydal ago
Hmm, I typed in +pan and +rape and got quite a few discussions linking the two. Maybe my search is just better than yours.
comeonpeople ago
You're about to be called a shill.
youhavetogoback123 ago
Many, many shills on this thread. Keep digging lads. We do this for free from the bottom of our hearts... Theses shills are paid....
matt_frohlich ago
Who specifically do you think are shills? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm new to pizzagate and I just want an idea of what a shill looks like.
research4real ago
Let's not jump to conclusions. Always double check the sources. FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)
RedGreenAlliance ago
fair enough but we all know that Wikipedia is disinfo and the powers that be have armies of contributors who are creating a new reality by altering wikipedia entries to fit their agenda. There is a long history of people personal profiles being scrubbed of scandals, or people being caricaturised with disinfo. Just put PizzaGate into Wikipedia and tell me Wikipedia is reliable. Its a rewriting of history and all information to suit agendas of people with the resources to manipulate it as a tool
thefloodcontrol ago
Yo don't ruin Pan's Labyrinth for me.
jonnythaiwongy9 ago
I know Pan is the drunken degenerate god and given that being a degenerate in those days, when sex with your mothers/daughters wasn't seen as abnormal, is a pretty high bar.
Bornforbattle74 ago
Where's there's Pan, there's PanDEMONium
quantokitty ago
Yeah, but it's just because we're all not seeing what a wonderful persecuted man he is.
We're the ones with the perverted minds.
matt_frohlich ago
If anyone wants a more in depth explanation for what Pan (i.e. Baphomet) represents, here are a couple resources. James Alefantis is far from the only person who references Pan; you see these references fairly regularly in occult circles. And yes, many of the occult groups that reference Baphomet say questionable things that are on par with what you see in pizzagate.
From Vigilant Citizen (popular conspiracy theory blog): http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/whoisbaphomet/
From my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4QFrdtkscI
thelastaelor ago
holy crap pan has absolutely nothing to do with baphomet
matt_frohlich ago
Do you have any evidence to prove me wrong? You may as well adopt the strategy of the MSM and accuse me of making fake news. At 4:08 in the video I cross-reference Albert Pike's work with that of Eliphias Levi to argue the connection between Pan and Baphomet. Both of these men were prominent occultists that continue to be influential.
thelastaelor ago
I'm not going to watch your video. If you bring up anything other than did the article, I humbly request you explain it in text.
Regarding the Vigilant Citizen link, I find this article insufficient evidence for the following reason, noted in the article itself:
I see nothing more than superficial coincidences, like having horns, linking these deities of vastly different domains across thousands of years. Pan is an old fertility god. Most likely far older than even the classical greeks. Pan is associated with the phallus... as are half of these greek deities. And I see no references about pedophilia.
Does Alefantis associate Pan with Baphomet? Maybe. Who knows what faux-beliefs he has? But because there's no link from Pan to Baphomet, him liking Pan does not prove anything.
And even if Alefantis was tied to Baphomet... or even came out and said "I love Satan," that's not illegal. It's just more circumstantial evidence suggesting child abuse to add to the pile.
matt_frohlich ago
Logical fallacy: refusal to acknowledge conflicting evidence. I even directed you to the part of the video to skip to. It will take 3 minutes to watch tops.
Logical fallacy: strawman argument. The links I provided in the original comment were to argue two overall points:
1.) That Pan and Baphomet are synonymous in modern occult circles
2.) What Baphomet represents
You argued against the first point by using evidence that existed to prove the second point.
thelastaelor ago
I'm not refusing to acknowledge conflicting evidence, I'm refusing to add to your view count. I've spent time on writing (and rewriting) this text, surely you can return the favor, if you indeed have anything new to say which the article did not already.
Not really a strawman but OK, I'll address your concern:
I'm fairly certain that how you intended to use your evidence has itself no bearing on the logical validity of how I choose to use it.
I'll try and spell this out a little more clearly:
Pan and Baphomet are not synonomous in modern occult circles. This is because there is no such thing as a single 'modern occult circle'. (this is actually a strawman, fyi). As the article suggests, modern occult practices are varied. There is no universally true link from worship of Pan to worship of Baphomet. Occultists will essentially use whatever they think is cool, and will adopt whatever symbols they feel like, even if the historical use of a symbol is completely contrary to their aims. Even if Pan and Baphomet have a connection in one occult circle, they may not in another (for no reason). Therefore, just because Alefantis likes Pan, does not necessarily imply he likes Baphomet. And since Pan doesn't even have historical pedophillic significance, it implies nothing about whether or not Alefantis is a pedophile.
And, let me say it again, even if Alefantis came out saying he liked Baphomet himself, because occult practices are so varied with little rhyme or reason, it is not proof he is a pedophile. In his brand of occultism, maybe Baphomet does represent pedophilia, maybe he(/she) doesn't. Even if he did like Baphomet, that is not proof of anything. It is more circumstantial evidence, which is not actual evidence. (And as evidence taken by itself, him expressing sympathy with Baphomet does not even necessarily imply he is an occultist. Baphomet is common knowledge to many people. To common person, who has only a brief familiarity with Baphomet and has only heard he(/she) is a symbol of enlightenment, being associated with true knowledge certainly doesn't sound like a bad thing to like. Of course, this is all a hypothetical comment, so it doesn't matter)
matt_frohlich ago
I made a reply in a word document with a transcript for the video along with links to all of the source material, but Voat isn't letting me paste that comment into here. I'll try to get it up when Voat lets me.
angryindividual ago
Haven't seen this. Have the archived link? This is damning.
SIMONBARROW ago
Good find - I've never seen this Instagram before. I bet there's plenty more jimmy comet Instagrams waiting to be discovered.
apparatchik1488 ago
wow. got a link to this?