Heather
Dagobah Resident
Focusing on the messenger, instead of the message, is what screwed up this civilisation cycle IMO.
But, dont be distracted with this "message" concept, continue to be distracted by nitpicking.
Excuse me, but this conversation we've been having is deepening our understanding of the globalist mechanism through which child sex trafficking is operating and increasing exponentially. Having an emotional reaction to "the message" of the film is not the same as understanding who the globalist perpetrators are, and how they get away with operating unimpeded in countless countries.
Voyageur's recent post points to the UN's role:
"The World Identity Network (WIN), UNOPS and the United Nations Office of Information and Communications Technology (UN-OICT) are partnering to launch a pilot initiative that will use blockchain technology to help combat child trafficking."
Have you even read this article, Nevic?
[URL unfurl-true]Latest
You should. It lays out how the child sex trafficking agenda is going to proceed, and this is from 2016, so one imagines they are much further along with this blockchain approach to digitizing the identities of millions of heretofore undocumented children (children without social security numbers or the like) who, on the one hand ARE vulnerable to child sex trafficking operators since, once in the traffickers' hands, these children cannot be traced, but on the other hand, as we have seen with the exponential rise in profits DUE to such globalist initiatives (most notably the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children launched by the Clintons in 1999), it stands to reason that using blockchain (for example) to put these forgotten children on the radar of the very people who are globally managing this whole child sex trafficking operation is cunningly making matters only worse for these "lost" children.
The good news is the fact that our even having such an in depth conversation (what Nevic is calling "nitpicking") is due to the commotion around this film, and in that respect the Sound of Freedom as a focal point is a useful tool for those willing to go beyond the emotionalism of "the message," a "message" which most of us here are already quite familiar with to begin with.
There is a reason why Amazing Polly, who has been looking at these child sex trafficking related players and organizations for years, is putting out the "Proceed with Caution" sign related to this movie. Even the main actor involved, Jim Caviezel, she notes was the very first client of Harvey Pasternak, the celebrity personal fitness trainer/handler who threatened Kanye West with institutionalization (for context, you can find this image in any number of articles on the subject):
https://twitter.com/kanyewest
Talk about exposure: very interesting that a personal "fitness" trainer has the authority to institutionalize his client. As Amazing Polly notes, being a client of the same handler indicates Caviezel is embedded in the Hollywood MKUltra style "management" we've all been hearing about for years now. It doesn't mean Caviezel isn't sincere in his efforts either. However, just like Kanye West, the way in which these individuals are damaged/fractured, compromised and controlled is still a valid consideration. Caviezel may well be a pawn in this very high stakes game in which the ultimate goal of the totally corrupt players associated with this film is to bring attention and unwitting support for the globalist "cause" of "stopping child sex trafficking," which they are entirely in charge of -- the very cause that they are now refining with blockchain and eventually microchipping.
On a more positive note, something that is promising is that the same nefarious players crop up again and again. When it really comes down to it, those spearheading this globalist cabal don't make for a very large group.
One of the names that crops up again and again, as quoted by Voyageur from the UNOPS website, which I also linked to above, is Richard Branson:
As Voyageur also points out, Polly mentioned Branson had hosted NXIVM at his island at one point, which is also where WIN, the World Identity Project, was launched. So, Branson really is in the thick of it.
Also nice that the film has pointed us in the direction of Mexican Clinton-connected billionaire, Carlos Slim (whom I never heard of before).
Oh--and now Tim Ballard and his "new" Spear Fund (linked to by @forest_light), in which concerned citizens are directed to a website offering no information. No, just press the "donate" button and be done with it!!
My God. Were we all born yesterday?
My mind just went to a speech by Martin Sheen in the Oliver Stone flick, Wall Street. Unfortunately this clip doesn't have the opening remarks in which Martin Sheen (in conference with his clueless son and the Wall Street piranha, Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas), is chuckling while uttering something like: "Now I've seen everything!"
Here's how the scene continues:
As I've mentioned elsewhere, journalist George Webb has pointed out that those who really go after child sex trafficking wind up dead. He has a personal reason for stating this given he claims this is what happened to his original research partner.
Related to this, starting in the 90's I've heard about the bloody trail of bodies the Clintons have left behind them in their meteoric rise to the highest office in the United States (after which the body count continued to rise).
This is who we are dealing with. It's a high stakes game in which they take no prisoners. If the Clinton-connected Slim is financing the film, it's for a reason.
Ignoring all this seems to point to a lapse in critical thinking. And without stepping back from one's emotions to evaluate things more critically, it's easy to fall for the very traps intended for well intentioned yet ill-informed consumers of this film, some of whom will immediately run to the Spear Fund, or other such entities, thinking they are "acting with conscience."
Really, how is all this not crystal clear?
And how is the work of continued research and vigilant critical thinking not laid out in all this?
Another thing George Webb has said from time to time with regard to real investigative research is "it's all in the meta-data."
In other words, it's not going to be handed to you on a silver platter. No, the silver platter -- the Sound of Freedom, in this instance -- is the misdirection. The real work is the Who, What, Why, Where, How of the film. That's the risk these people take in trying to hoodwink the public: it may work on some, but it also ignites the critical vigilance of others.
And by the way, Amazing Polly has good reason to point out how the film's narrative deviates from the alleged facts of Tim Ballard's original experience. Especially when, as she points out, the boy character is presented as Mexican instead of American, thus obscuring and thereby potentially protecting the real traffickers in the case. This, at the very least, is worth considering.
By the way, those supporters of the film who blindly think it's great since it's bringing "awareness" to the masses then turn around and call anyone who is critical of the film a pederast are using the very same tactic the cabal has been using against all of us: have they forgotten already how anyone resisting the Covid vax was being automatically labeled, attacked and marginalized?
Yes, those in the mainstream media who are disingenuously railing against the film given that's what they're paid to do, could be said to be on the side of the cabal, and its pedophiles (and some could be pedophiles themselves). But that context isn't being clearly delineated. Instead, supposedly well meaning individuals are using broad strokes to berate anyone bringing reasoned criticism to this film, and that's just pathetic. They are doing it, just as the cabal does it: in order to shut down further discussion. Again: just pathetic.
I'll end on something else Amazing Polly pointed to: how the media's railing against the film makes for a further enticement to go and see the flick. (Basic human psychology stuff.) Even sabotaging theaters could heighten the perceived importance and authenticity of the film. So I wouldn't rely on these things as proof that this film is "the one that got away" from those running the show here. As a lot of this thread is delineating, it is instead far more useful to them to use the film to draw people in as concerns their "good for humanity" "anti-child sex trafficking" network of initiatives and organizations. Their "pro-green" routine is just the same, their playbook increasingly transparent.
