Sound of Freedom
- Thread starter mkrnhr
- Start date
Well, it shouldn't. This topic, like many others, is not black and white but nuanced, mainly because people and their motivations are complex (which includes a lot of fallibility and good intentions falling short and bad intentions ending up doing good). Everyone on this planet exists along a spectrum, and the vast, VAST majority are not cleaved to one end or the other.
The law of three states that: "there is black, white, and the specific situation that determines which is which" but when the determination is made, the conclusion is usually that it's some shade of grey. That doesn't stop us from drawing a conclusion or taking action, but it will often be - especially on topics that are global in scope - with a significant amount of doubt in the moment as to the correctness of the conclusion drawn of action taken. Only afterwards are we able to get a reasonably solid idea about whether or not we were, generally-speaking, correct in our assessment.
Thankfully, the stakes involved in most conclusions we draw and action we take are not very high, even if they sometimes cause us to suffer. But through suffering we not only learn ( which includes learning how to avoid unnecessary suffering), but develop an awareness that life is difficult for everyone, and that can motivate us to minimize suffering and maximize joy, for both ourselves and others, which I suppose is empathy.
Last edited:
I'm trying to find where Tim Ballard said that chipping kids was a good idea, I tried to search this thread but couldn't find the original post, can anyone share where they found it? I came across this tweet:
But commenters have said they can't find a source for this. Tim Ballard commented:
But commenters have said they can't find a source for this. Tim Ballard commented:
Heather
Dagobah Resident
Hi again, Aragorn.Olive branch accepted!
Look, I'm just trying to share the way I discern these things based on my past experiences and mistakes.
I promise you, I'm at the top of the list of people to admit that the Clintons, Podestas, and other 'deep state' bastards should never be trusted. A couple of examples...
Some 5-6 years ago, while the Kappy/Barnett thing was hot, there was this Hollywood style 'pedo hunter' (unfortunately I can't remember his name). He was all over the internet and made a grand style documentary about his actions (maybe similar to SOF), he did a lot of fund raising (many donated and he got apparently a lot of money), and it later turned out that he was, indeed, a fraud. He hadn't rescued anyone, and his film was just fiction.
Then around the same time there was this younger dude on Twitter who came out as a whistleblower of being a SRA victim. He appeared very authentic and I sincerely believed him, felt sorry for him. There were "people after him", and he needed to move house to escape them...so people started donating money to him (I didn't). Then, later, it turned out that he was a drug addict who had made the whole thing up just to get money for his drugs. To discern if this was true (I had a hard time believing this), I had to listen and read very carefully the things he put out and compare it with other sources, which took a lot of time. In the end, I had to admit that I had been fooled.
In other words, I have no trouble believing that some of these 'pedo hunters' and whistleblowers are fraudsters. However, I've also learned that one shouldn't jump too quickly to conclusions...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And that our tendency (which is understandable) to do sleuthing to 'expose those bastards' is often utlizied by those very bastards (they feed us false leads).
As a closing remark I have to say that one of the biggest enimgas regarding the SRA/pedo stuff is Fiona Barnett. I've listened to numerous of her interviews, watched her doucmentary, and read her book 'Eyes wide open', and I still can't say if I trust her or not. She appears very witty, smart, and down-to-earth, and in essence she's very believable. However, some of the things she describes seem so outlandish that you don't now what to think! She's disappeared from the internet some years ago, so I don't know what she's up to these days.
Re: Kappy, I believe it was Mouthy Buddha who did some very well produced videos on him -- on Tom Hanks also. Just looked him up, He now has a Bitchute channel so he might be worth looking at. He's got a lot of Dark Cult, human trafficking material still. I had only seen maybe two or three vids in the past by him, but I thought he seemed legit. Also: good writing and production value. I see he was linked to in the Pizzagate thread, but given he was part of a purge on Youtube those videos are now defunct. So Bitchute looks to be his more recent platform.
I've heard about the book Eyes Wide Open but I don't recall if I've seen Fiona Barnett or not. Recently I saw another victim of SRA (whose name escapes me) -- didn't listen to all her testimony since I need to sleep at night! I have a small quotient of very dark material I can take in, so it's to have a balance.
Anyway, I will no doubt still be around, but I felt I needed to take a break from writing just now. Also, my husband and I are taking a week-long trip in a couple of weeks -- much needed (!).
To me this is the central thing. We should be aware of the possibility that this might be a thing that's "rigged to explode" to make it easier for credulous people to believe trafficking is largely myth... BUT, always remember that bombs can be defused and sometimes are duds to begin with.
The message of the movie seems positive. Maybe not comprehensive, maybe not 100% realistic, but what is one to expect from a movie? If the creation of the movie is mired with muck, that's suspicious, but in that case I think the message of the movie should be "liberated" from them and carried forward. If that happens and they don't like it, they might show their hand.
I've been following Doug and Stacy's youtube channel for a while now. They've been off the grid homesteaders for 15 years in Amish country. Here are the 2 videos he posted. The Reese video I posted near the beginning of this thread is what set him off. Talk about an emotional reaction! He was very angry and said he WOULDN'T see the film! So he started his own investigation into the matter and found Ballards' Underground Railroad was under investigation in Utah for 2 years and connections to shady characters. A lot of what he's said has already been covered here.
As it turns out after that, he explained his encounter with a pedophile as a boy and the arrest of that Cathloic priest for molesting a different boy. So that would explain his immediate, emotional reaction to the Reese video.
I recommend this channel. They're good people with a lot of useful information to share and well informed with whats going on. Herbal remedies, fermenting foods, on and on. Doug can be quite dramatic at times and sometimes breaks into song. He dresses like an Amish man. I think he must be a Leo
.Part 1, State of Utah trial investigating Underground Railroad, An Oklahoma City Council (Doug mistakenly said Utah) member gives background on Ballard and why the local police department shouldn't use his software to track children. Ballard working with Kissinger and Sen. Feinstein in the Afghan Foundation. The Reese video.
Part 2: Utah investigation. Claims made that no cooperation was given to carry out the investigation and the case was dropped just before the roll out of the movie. Carlos Slim has a son that works in Blackrock, and another son with WEF. Why go to criminals for money, he says.
I couldn't agree more that the message of Sound of Freedom is highly commendable in that it brings awareness of child trafficking to the masses (although it would seem that the MAGA conservative right / some QAnon holdouts are the target audience and are the ones responsible for its viral exposure) and yes, it is a movie and not a documentary with reviews indicating it's a very well made movie. I made the observation, though, in another thread (that I can't find now to save my life) that viewers of movies, particularly those based on "true events", come away believing that they have viewed an accurate depiction of events rather than a mostly fictionalized account. I made the comment that no wonder the Cs said the programming is complete. For SOF, the argument is the message is paramount to any issues with the factual nature of Tim Ballard's story/experience. What's concerning, though, is the financing and subsequent donations generated by the impact of the movie. As with all things suspicious, the best way to determine the truth of the situation is to FOLLOW THE MONEY.
As has been suggested, the fact the movie is being attacked by MSM obviously shows that the PTB don't want people to know the extent of this horrible activity despite the whole Epstein business having not gone unnoticed by a long shot. But, when considering that the CIA created the whole QAnon scam, is it that unbelievable that reverse psychology is being employed here? The more the talking heads decry the movie (and its viewers), the more people are going to watch it in defiance! And the very expected result > Yes, outraged people! Send tons of money to our donation site and don't ask where it's ultimately ending up or what it's actually accomplishing!
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Last edited:
According to this article, Israel sex slavery Colombia to Ukraine (by Ryan Dawson - a name familiar to some), the above happened in 2018. The article provides details along with further accounts occurring in Mexico:
As noted above, from The Jerusalem Post - excerpt:
Israeli father, daughter arrested for trying to pimp out Ukrainian women
From the first article:
Heather
Dagobah Resident
Hi Aragorn, and Joe.
Since I feel to be part of "some members here" I thought I should respond (although I've been trying to take a break from posting!).
I think you two are reducing things to an either/or scenario when, especially since none of us can really know all the workings behind the scenes, my take is more of a both/and scenario.
In a prior post, I'd mentioned how Trump, given his Christian following whose objective legitimately seems to be to put an end to child sex trafficking, could legitimately use the film toward that end (regardless of who its makers are). I did mention also some irony in the fact that Trump is highlighting a film whose major backer is Carlos Slim given Trump has publicly exposed the man (in a speech he gave) as not only a multi-million dollar donor to the Clintons and their projects, but the largest shareholder of the New York Times, the writers of which, states Trump, are not journalists but lobbyists for the Clintons and Carlos Slim -- that is how central Trump considers Slim.
But Trump is at heart a deal man (a maker of deals), and so anything is possible.
So, it seems Trump recently screened Sound of Freedom at his New Jersey golf resort with Tim Ballard among those invited. (I'm doubtful Carlos made the guest list -- poor Carlos.)
Anyway, allow me to now engage in what Peter Duke of the Duke Report refers to as "high octane speculation."
Now, it doesn't at all surprise me that Trump and his "people" (whomever they may be) are going along with the "Tim Ballard as anti child sex trafficking hero" to promote the film. I'd even speculate that Ballard's Spear Fund was set up as hastily as it was in cooperation with Trump & Co., as it's possible Trump wanted to avoid the murkiness associated with Ballard's OUR organization which was being investigated -- oh, wait. That investigation was dropped just prior to this new release of Sound of Freedom (the timing of that completely coincidental, of course). I'll even further speculate that Trump & Co. will oversea the Spear Fund themselves -- one hopes, in order to use the donations legitimately. In other words, Ballard may have been offered a "deal." In that, he may have switched teams, as it were, with his prior offences (and there looks to be many) ignored for now, and potentially expunged long term.
This version of things implies that Trump and those aligned with him have a substantial degree of bargaining power. I'd say this isn't too far fetched as it seems to go to how it is that Trump manages to stay above water no matter how much is thrown at him.
Significantly, Trump & Co. are using Sound of Freedom to bring attention to the reality of child sex trafficking so that when they DO make their pubic move to substantially shut down such operations, or at least speak to that objective, the importance of this will not be lost on the general public who, having just seen the film, are now disturbed and upset, and would like to see something done about it. (That many will donate to the deceptively set up Clinton-Podesta "anti" child sex trafficking NGO's, which have substantially increased the profits of that very industry, I leave for further speculation -- or, no, actually, I'll posit this question: does Trump & Co have some pressure-applying power in that arena as well?)
Not unrelated to this, I've been wondering for a long time whether Trump may just represent another Deep State faction. (Not that I still wouldn't like to see what that faction has to offer us plebes since things couldn't look much worse as things now stand--oh, and I'll leave RFK Jr out of this for now.) But my point is, Trump's faction's objective would likely include stopping the money flow of its enemy (the globalist Deep State faction, let's call it), which includes their very lucrative child sex trafficking industry.
Again, this doesn't mean the Christians backing Trump are not sincere about their objective to put an end to child sex trafficking, and so whether Trump the politician is sincere or not is beside the point.*
Anyway, as the saying goes, politics makes strange bed fellows.
Along these lines... Trump's long-time connection to Epstein is not fully acknowledged by his base. As their fabled version of the story goes, Trump dropped Epstein [after seven years, I think the time frame is] the very instant he realized who this terrible Epstein character really was. However, as Whitney Webb points out in One Nation Under Blackmail, Epstein and Trump actually had a falling out over a real estate deal in which Trump bought a coveted property out from under Epstein, this after years of Trump's socializing with Epstein, including at their private parties with "very young" girls. Trump's ditching Epstein also coincided with the fact that Epstein and his ilk were becoming less desirable since much of the same type of work could be accomplished in other ways, including via the internet--that is, the blackmail aspect. Epstein was involved with a great deal more than that, however (consider: he was mentored by Lesly Wexner, about whom Whitney Webb has a great deal to say in her book as well). In fact, one can't help but conclude that Barr and Trump were seriously invested in Epstein's subsequent demise, as were many other high echelon players.
And so that Trump could now emerge as another hero in the war against child sex trafficking in particular also has its share of irony given his checkered past (which allegedly has been scrubbed from the internet, or at least largely so). Also, let's not forget what Whitney Webb and others have noted: that real estate development in particular goes hand and hand with major money laundering operations.
So, maybe we are in the realm of Deep State factions fighting amongst themselves since none of us are really sure of Trump's ultimate objectives or even allegiances. Actually, someone on this thread linked to a 2019 podcast by a Brooklynite by the name of Goldberg who had frighteningly good intel related to what was about to happen with the Covid "pandemic"; he also had some interesting things to say about Trump, including his being a serious Zionist (something I've wondered about myself). Unfortunately, Goldberg was found dead not long after this last podcast. (Does anyone know the podcaster I'm talking about?)
So, although I remain skeptical related to Trump, I'm open to this film being used in any number of ways -- again, regardless of its makers.
Putting my speculations aside for a moment, what Trump is openly about is The Art of the Deal (the title of Trump's book, which conveys what was taught to him by his mentor, Roy Cohn). And as Trump is well aware, people like Ballard don't have to be true heroes to be used as heroes. After all, when it comes to the art of deal making, all such potential scenarios are in play.
But none of what I'm saying here indicates that any of what is being posted here on this thread relative to Deep State involvement is irrelevant or untrue. Instead, it's part of an unwinding scenario that we are watching play out, and that we'll be unraveling over time.
Actually, as I've been speculating with regard to Trump, when it comes to the Sound of Freedom, he may have beaten the Clinton-Podesta camp at their own game. But time will tell, I guess. If the tracking of children escalates, and these NGO's and other entities and data bases refine their operations... well, you can see what that means. And a major financial downturn could be played out in any number of ways -- as a hit to Deep State operations, but also as an opportunity given how desperate the population will be.
Oh, one more thing... since the subject of being "emotional" was brought up... as I noted in an earlier post--well, here, I'll quote what I wrote:
I bring this up given it suggests that those who blindly support the "message" of the film without any skepticism as to the motives of its makers, the credibility of its pop-up hero, Tim Ballard, etc., are often the ones reacting emotionally by blindly go on the attack (which only serves the divisive motives of the Deep State).
As Greg Reese stated in his early video on Sound of Freedom, "we must not let our emotions blind us from logic and reason." (By emotions he's referring to what's being stirred up given the topic of child sex trafficking.)
I'd add, to develop these arguments on this thread is not an "emotional" reaction. As per above, I contend the misplaced emotionalism that's clouding judgment lies elsewhere.
* Don't get me wrong, a part of me, as skeptical as I am, is still something of a sucker for redemption stories. I've even written in the past at this forum about how I thought it possible that the adulation of Trump by his base may have had a serious effect on him. After all, those who potentially love Trump the most, Trump could very well have written off as "losers" in his past incarnation. Only, now that he was so loved, so adored by so many of the working class, as the relentless attacks on him continued... how could he not have been moved?... and couldn't this have changed him? (Still, the skeptic in me whispers in my other ear that this too is just theater!)
Last edited:
I do find it curious that this conversation is still going on with so much exposure.
Until further evidence is shown, I think the most reasonable position to take is to look at the facts, as far as this movie is concerned, the facts are that, it is a small movie about a sad topic. There's no need to create very large and very complex conspiracies on both ends of the spectrum to explain it.
Sometimes a movie is just that, a movie.
I was reminded of the C's mention of "pattern recognition run amok", as I do get the sense that is what we're witnessing, and we're all prone to it, I have done it elsewhere in this forum, but it's that.. seeing patterns everywhere.
The trouble is that when we become fixated upon a specific outcome to our machinations, we forget about the very principle of a hypothesis or a theory. You twist the theory to suit the facts, and not twist the facts to fit the theory.
The irony of this whole thing, is that so much has been said about the movie, from all sides, that I doubt they'd want to ever make a movie about a controversial topic again.
Until further evidence is shown, I think the most reasonable position to take is to look at the facts, as far as this movie is concerned, the facts are that, it is a small movie about a sad topic. There's no need to create very large and very complex conspiracies on both ends of the spectrum to explain it.
Sometimes a movie is just that, a movie.
I was reminded of the C's mention of "pattern recognition run amok", as I do get the sense that is what we're witnessing, and we're all prone to it, I have done it elsewhere in this forum, but it's that.. seeing patterns everywhere.
The trouble is that when we become fixated upon a specific outcome to our machinations, we forget about the very principle of a hypothesis or a theory. You twist the theory to suit the facts, and not twist the facts to fit the theory.
The irony of this whole thing, is that so much has been said about the movie, from all sides, that I doubt they'd want to ever make a movie about a controversial topic again.
Well, that's the public voting with their support. Even if some shady characters come up with funding for the budget to produce the movie, the public have been very willing to hear the story by a factor of around 10 to 1 as far as finances go.
The other good thing about this is that those that go see SoF, could be more open to taking a closer look at the peeps involved in Comet Pizza, Epstein Island/Lolita Express and the Dutroux Affair and others.
Speaking of Dutroux, was just rereading some articles about him and this one mentions that he wanted to build an underground city, curious since underground populations are mentioned in the latest session.
This is nice, glad to see some of my favorite movies in that list.. :)
This video (25 min) might prove interesting to the forum members who are fluent in Spanish.
Jorge Zamora is a Chilean who has put out many videos that are his interpretations of possible meanings found in movies by means of visual clues.
Warning: Chilean Spanish accent
SONIDO DE LIBERTAD EL MENSAJE OCULTO
Jorge Zamora is a Chilean who has put out many videos that are his interpretations of possible meanings found in movies by means of visual clues.
Warning: Chilean Spanish accent
SONIDO DE LIBERTAD EL MENSAJE OCULTO