I'm no shill (see my other comments here), but I really don't think this is anything. Look at the statement in the context of the entire sentence and the larger email thread. The email prior to this comment is describing some situation that they hope will work out as they want. Then we see this in response:
With fingers crossed, the old rabbit's foot out of the box in the attic, I will be sacrificing a chicken in the backyard to Moloch . . .
It seems pretty obvious to me that what we're seeing here is a joke about three different methods of trying to get good luck or a desired outcome.
Method 1 = Crossing fingers
Method 2 = Using a rabbit's foot
Method 3 = Making a sacrifice to a god
Honestly, I don't see anything remotely sinister here unless you insist that she really meant to do these things literally (i.e. cross her fingers, go into the attic to get a rabbit's foot, then, still having her fingers crossed, sacrifice a chicken), and even then there's no reason in this particular instance to think "chicken" is code for anything, since an actual chicken would make perfect sense here.
It's things like this that teach us the lesson that we need to be ever-vigilant against confirmation bias.
Is a Satanist more likely to kill a person to please Molech, or a chicken? In the beginning of the history of this god, Molech was the god that people would offer their children to as a sacrifice. This was because they were in Babylon, having orgies, and having lots of unwanted babies. Satan is happier with the destruction of a human life, than he is with the destruction of a chicken life. Chickenlover = pedo slang for boy lover. IDK, you can think it was just a coincidence if you want. I am simply asking what other people think. So thank you for your two cents.
1) Both children and animals were sacrificed to Moloch
2) It seems to me that you're simply assuming she knew anything about Moloch beyond the name, for example, knowing enough to know that children were sacrificed, but not enough to know that animals were sacrificed. Now, maybe you're right that she was intimately familiar with Moloch, but then that causes a problem if you're assuming she didn't know animals were also sacrificed. So your argument seems to require that she have a very specific amount of knowledge, but no more.
3) You have to assume that she meant all this literally rather than as a joke that went along with the other two references to courting good luck. Do you think she literally crossed her fingers and got the rabbit's foot out of the attic? If not, why think she literally sacrificed a chicken, much less a child, and in her backyard of all places?
I suspect you might think I'm a shill or something for taking a stand against this, but precisely the opposite is true. I think there is legitimate cause for concern about pizzagate and warrant for an investigation to determine whether or not the pizzagate suspicions are true. I'm also thoroughly annoyed by how badly the MSM has misrepresented this issue. But in this particular case this truly seems to me like a clear case of confirmation bias and a complete abandonment of objectivity and healthy skepticism, which only gives justification to the MSM for ignoring pizzagate. I see zero reason to believe she literally did any of the 3 things she mentioned here, and this sentence gives no telltale indications that it is employing "chicken" as a code word. When you read this whole thing in context, this statement simply comes off as a kind of joke expressing her hope that things described in the prior email turn out as desired.
view the rest of the comments →
heks_ ago
I'm no shill (see my other comments here), but I really don't think this is anything. Look at the statement in the context of the entire sentence and the larger email thread. The email prior to this comment is describing some situation that they hope will work out as they want. Then we see this in response:
It seems pretty obvious to me that what we're seeing here is a joke about three different methods of trying to get good luck or a desired outcome.
Method 1 = Crossing fingers
Method 2 = Using a rabbit's foot
Method 3 = Making a sacrifice to a god
Honestly, I don't see anything remotely sinister here unless you insist that she really meant to do these things literally (i.e. cross her fingers, go into the attic to get a rabbit's foot, then, still having her fingers crossed, sacrifice a chicken), and even then there's no reason in this particular instance to think "chicken" is code for anything, since an actual chicken would make perfect sense here.
It's things like this that teach us the lesson that we need to be ever-vigilant against confirmation bias.
amyrebeccajames ago
Molech is the literal child sacrifice god, not the chicken sacrifice god... he's not Colonel Sanders.
amyrebeccajames ago
Is a Satanist more likely to kill a person to please Molech, or a chicken? In the beginning of the history of this god, Molech was the god that people would offer their children to as a sacrifice. This was because they were in Babylon, having orgies, and having lots of unwanted babies. Satan is happier with the destruction of a human life, than he is with the destruction of a chicken life. Chickenlover = pedo slang for boy lover. IDK, you can think it was just a coincidence if you want. I am simply asking what other people think. So thank you for your two cents.
heks_ ago
1) Both children and animals were sacrificed to Moloch
2) It seems to me that you're simply assuming she knew anything about Moloch beyond the name, for example, knowing enough to know that children were sacrificed, but not enough to know that animals were sacrificed. Now, maybe you're right that she was intimately familiar with Moloch, but then that causes a problem if you're assuming she didn't know animals were also sacrificed. So your argument seems to require that she have a very specific amount of knowledge, but no more.
3) You have to assume that she meant all this literally rather than as a joke that went along with the other two references to courting good luck. Do you think she literally crossed her fingers and got the rabbit's foot out of the attic? If not, why think she literally sacrificed a chicken, much less a child, and in her backyard of all places?
I suspect you might think I'm a shill or something for taking a stand against this, but precisely the opposite is true. I think there is legitimate cause for concern about pizzagate and warrant for an investigation to determine whether or not the pizzagate suspicions are true. I'm also thoroughly annoyed by how badly the MSM has misrepresented this issue. But in this particular case this truly seems to me like a clear case of confirmation bias and a complete abandonment of objectivity and healthy skepticism, which only gives justification to the MSM for ignoring pizzagate. I see zero reason to believe she literally did any of the 3 things she mentioned here, and this sentence gives no telltale indications that it is employing "chicken" as a code word. When you read this whole thing in context, this statement simply comes off as a kind of joke expressing her hope that things described in the prior email turn out as desired.