Blackmail 1-0-1 : Before SHTF, Let's Revisit Jeffrey Epstein's Little Black Book https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-08/shtf-lets-revisit-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book
Step 1 is understand the problem, a necessary first step required for any possibility of handling this deep state problem. On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 09:44:44PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 08:48:25PM +1000, Gil May wrote: > > Subject: : Victoria Legalizes Child Porn, check it out. > > Time for decent people to take a serious stand. > > > > https://www.facebook.com/AnthonyJC1983/videos/229304717949739/ > > > > I am speechless. Have a look at what is shown as the Parliamentary Act put > > before the Parliament. > > > > Interesting. > > The de-criminalisation of natural/normal child activities (e.g. > taking pictures of themselves and others) is of course a good thing, > and appears to be the intent of these laws/ amendments that the OP > Subject line is referring to in a sensationalist way. > > In fact the broad sweeping laws that were in place were broad and > sweeping, and failed to consider this situation of children doing > things children can be expeted to (and do) actually do - take photos > of themselves and friends. > > Somewhat humorously and completely "non ironically" the narrator in > the linked video begins "Did you know, that the production, > possession and distribution of child pornography has been legalized > in Australia?" thus implicitly asserting (and inserting) himself into > the very same (and rightfully) dreaded 'censor' role or decider of > what is, and is not, pornography, that he later on highlights as > problematic (when he asks "who gets to decide what's reasonable"). > > As is usual with wanna be censors, those who would willingly make > such decisions for others, usually (as is the case here) don't want > others to make censorship decisions for themselves ("I would make > great censorship decisions!" "MY Marxist utopio would -really- be a > utopia, unlike all those other failed experiements in history!") > > > Unfortunately the narrator does not see this very irony of him > calling out the legislative trap ("Whom will make the decisions of > a reasonable man"), and completely falling into the same trap > throughout his entire video ("Child pornography of those images taken > by say 12 year olds of their own bodies, is still pornography and the > law must make no exception for this, and I'll decide what is and is > not pornographic"). > > Every "allegation" of "pornography" (or in this case the alleged > "legalization of child pornography") is necessarily a judgement call > founded on what is and what is not pornography, which of course > cannot be made except that the one making the allegation is defining, > or is willing to define and believes they are capable of defining, > "pornography" or in this case "child pornography" - which in any case > is essentially impossible to define other than "I know it when I see > it" which falls back to the arrogantly self implied "great moral > standing" of the one deigning to make such decisions on behalf of > others/ the rest of us. > > The trap is self referential, and subtle, thus circuitous and > repetitive in most attempts to unravel it. > > This subtlety is the reason cries of "please, won't someone think of > the children and save them (from themselves)" is both so appealing > yet so deceptive to many and simultaneously alluring to the virtue- > signalling SJW wanna bes, and thus also difficult for many to counter > (or rather "to straighten out the underlying assumptions which don't > quite make sense but I just can't quite figure out why"). > > > Put another way, one Soul's personal childhood explorations and > memories, are another Soul's "pornography". > > As in, literally. > > Perhaps does the one brandishing the accusation stick of "your image > is pornographic, you must suffer the law" tell us more about the one > making this accusation, than the target of his accusation? > > Matthew 7:5: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine > own eye; and only then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote > out of thy brother's eye.” > https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-7-5/ > > > Many humans project their own sin (incorrect direction, of action, > attention etc), fears, and painful personal past events, upon others, > naturally (but mostly incorrectly) assuming others have a similar > lense to themselves - the age old projectionism trap. > > > Something constructive? May be require that every legislated crime > name an actual victim, as well as the actual harm that victim has > actually suffered. And perhaps leave it to parents, rather than > police and the courts, to educate their children on the dangers of > sharing with others, images they take of themselves. > > (And while we're at it, work hard to reduce or eliminate all > victimless crimes, putting humans first and corporations last in our > scheme of values.) > > > > For an absolute classic (and very recent) example of projectionism in > action, see Lana Lockteff on Suzanne Harper (the so called "Jessie > Daniels") > > Feminist Professor: White Nuclear Families Are Racist & Supremacist > Red Ice TV > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yR1BBlGI1M > > Jessie/ Suzanne is virulently anti-White, speaks of "dismantling > white supremacy", the evils of the "white nuclear family" being "one > of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy" etc etc etc > ... > > ... and according to her own story (IF true), Suzanne was molested > by her grandfather and he'd had a stint in the KKK, yet this > "professor" Suzanne cannot see her projection of her (if true) > painful past, upon all white people and all "white nuclear families" > and "the patriarchy". > > Go figure :D - perhaps she ought take a university course on > psychology. > > Those with genuine unresolved issues arising from their childhood > ought seek the help they need to find healing, resolution, closure > and peace within themselves before one-sidely branding as evil an > entire race or people (in Suzanne Harper's case, all "white" people > and especially "white nuclear families"). > > > A far greater problem which we actually appear to have and which > actually affects most of us, is the blackmailing of our politicians, > which since "the legalization" of those of the same gender who would > "get a room" and otherwise carry out their intimate business in > private, is these days limited to cuckoldry and pedophilia blackmail. > > Perhaps those eager to decry legislation without even a word to the > problems inherent in the position they boldly oppose, ought ponder > this question of our blackmailed politicians. Assuming of course they > don't melt before hearing a position other than their own... > > > Create your world. Perhaps first "clean up your room" which > metaphorically speaking could include seeking closure on any painful > events from your own childhood if that's something you need, and > after this you might even find that some of those you love to hate > are actually interesting, caring, deeply thoughtful, and possibly > even loving, creative and wonderful fellow human beings. >
