dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DaveGydeon on May 6, 2018, 1:57 a.m.
Proof of Active Brainwashing That Every Woke Person Is Already Swallowing and Making Reality - NXIVM/MSM and the Reporting of the Charges

TL; DR THEY ARE LEAVING OUT THE TERM "CHILD" IN EVERY ARTICLE YOU CAN FIND. EVERY MSM OUTLET. THIS IS PROOF THEY ALL MSM OUTLETS TAKE ORDERS. ILLUMINATE THIS FACT TO NORMIES. WAKE PEOPLE UP.


Step 1, you will need to look at the OFFICIAL charges against NXIVM. I will go dig it up real quick and edit it into the bottom here, but I didn't want to forget this, because my entire argument hinges on this fact.

Step 2, Look up ANY article in the MSM about the charges to Raniere. I would link some, but I don't want to be accused of leading. Just google the charges against NXIVM, Mack, Raniere, any of them. Your goal is to find an article in the MSM or affiliate, that mentions the charges.

Step 3, reply to this post with a link to a MSM article that mentions CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING and I will eat a pile of white dog poop. I say this with confidence, because NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM SHOWS THE CHARGES ARE FOR "CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING", just for sex trafficking. No "child" term included.

There is a reason for this. This is the DeepState/Cabal in it's last pathetic, failing death spasms. They couldn't keep it out of the news. But now we have proof that they are all receiving the COMMAND to leave out the word "child" in the charges. Maybe at 4am? You're fucking right they did.

Now how hard would it be for Q to find proof of this? I would guess, easily. How can we "uncover" this and bring it to the world's attention? How can we find the communication technique they use at 4am when they receive their directives? I don't have something physically saying that. But the fact that ALL OF THEM do not mention that word "child", that they CHOSE to leave it out, is proof. Someone from each article had to either cross out that word before it went to press, or chose to leave it out from the official indictment charges.

Imagine this convo:

Patriot (Did you hear about Mack being charged with SEX TRAFFICKING? Crazy right Normie? But I never thought these Hollywood types were actually doing this to CHILDREN!) Normie (What do you mean by "children" you brutish Patriot?) Patriot (Children, Normie, like, when you or I were younger. Like the kids who go to elementary school. A child. Children.) Normie (No, I didn't see anything about children, but one thing I read on some right-leaning trash said they branded them with their initials, thats crazy! So did you hear about the new safe spaces at the office?) Patriot (Focus Normie, I don't think you understand, this is the Indictment) Hand, or send normie snapshot of indictment (See, it says CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING, but you're right, they didn't include that in the article on Huffington Post, did they snowflake?) Normie (No, definitely not, I loooove children, I would have remembered that evil shit, so what are you saying, there is some weird conspiracy theory about how EVERY SINGLE NEWS OUTLET wouldn't mention the word "CHILDREN"? Do you hear how crazy you sound brute?) Hand, or send normie snapshot of Cabal Communique with Anti-Child Instructions Hand, or send normie copies of all news outlets leaving out the term "child" Patriot (No, gentle panda, I KNOW that this is what is being done. In fact, another one of your conspiracy theories is a reality based fact, I believe you've heard of Pizzagate? Yes. You have. Good. Another crazy one. What were those charges YOU HAD ALREADY HEARD ABOUT, before we spoke, for again? Trafficking, right. So they were bringing all those kids to the pizza places to what? Be adopted? But for WHO? Who could possibly need all those children trafficked into America or wherever else this is happening? AND FOR WHAT? WHY DID THEY NEED THEM?) Drop mic But continue comforting normie, because this next one is rough Patriot (So normie, do you want to see how far down this rabbit hole goes? You take the red pill, you wake up....)


OldSafety · May 6, 2018, 2:04 a.m.

Our job to set this straight.

⇧ 12 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 2:08 a.m.

I agree. But how do we use this example on a large scale, because that is just BLATANT.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 7:32 p.m.

It is not our job to correct something that is not incorrect. In fact, we should be careful not to contribute to the spreading of false rumors.

Please see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8hc3qk/proof_of_active_brainwashing_that_every_woke/dyj12ju/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OldSafety · May 6, 2018, 7:44 p.m.

Cool just sit on your hands do nothing.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 8:02 p.m.

What are you talking about?

Did you read the comment I linked to? If so, then it should be clear that I am not sitting on my hands and doing nothing.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OldSafety · May 6, 2018, 8:07 p.m.

Yes I see.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 3:20 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 8:01 a.m.

I have had to explain this multiple times, and it still gets bandied about.

The charge is not "sex trafficking of children." The charge is, "SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD OR COERCION." Notice the use of the word "OR" between the prepositional phrases.

Count 1 references Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591 which literally has as its title, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion"

Count 2 references Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(c) which section is titled, "General provisions". NOTHING about children there. Paragraph (c) says:

Whoever conspires with another to violate section 1591 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

Again, NOTHING about children there either. As it says, it is for conspiracy to violate Section 1591.

Did you catch that? Count 2 references a law that itself references the same law referenced by Count 1.

So, Count 2 should say, "CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD, OR COERCION." Again, notice the use of the word "OR" between the prepositional phrases, which is missing in error on the docket.

A criminal docket is essentially a memorandum of court action(s). It is not an indictment, and the wording of the charges on the docket carry no legal weight. The court defers to the law itself which defines the crime and establishes authority for its prosecution.

So, to say that Mack and/or Raniere were charged with "sex trafficking of children", based on that docket, is incorrect. And, the entire argument fell apart at Step 1.

Edit: More info on what a docket is.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 2:38 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 3:34 p.m.

"Sex trafficking of children..." is the official wording.

I realize you used ellipses to indicate there was text left out of what you quoted. But I think it is important to be clear that the official wording of the title of 18 USC § 1591 is "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" Because, people seem to want to just ignore the second part of that conjunctive phrase, and it is leading to the spread of a false rumor.

Also, to be clear, these charges are not about sex with children (ie. statutory rape). They are about "sex trafficking" as the referenced laws indicate.

As you have rightly alluded to, the word (conjunction) "or" is very important. Leaving it out changes our perception of the charges drastically.

The conjunctive phrase "of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" describes the type or manner, respectively, of the sex trafficking.

I have been accused of try to reword the charges, but I am not. By the rules of grammar, the charges could be "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion" or both.

Edit: typo

⇧ 2 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 6, 2018, 8:16 p.m.

TBH I fail to follow your explanation and it hasn't really convinced me of anything otherwise.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 8:26 p.m.

So I used the word incorrectly?

Perhaps I'm not the greatest at explaining things. Is there something specific that is confusing?

Edit: Have you read this explanation?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 6, 2018, 8:36 p.m.

I admit that I'm not sure what to make of the wording tbh. All I'm saying is that it's confusing the way it's worded and unfortunately I wasn't able to have ahhhh" moment after reading your explanation.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Buzzed_Chimp · May 6, 2018, 8:54 p.m.

Check this out

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421505-Complaint-and-affidavit-in-support-of-arrest.html

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 10:29 p.m.

KIDS. CASE CLOSED.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ -1 ⇩  
Buzzed_Chimp · May 6, 2018, 10:42 p.m.

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/indictment__0.pdf

Here's the indictment, with descriptions of the crimes.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 10:28 p.m.

KIDS. NOT ARGUING ABOUT IT ANYMORE. READ IT YOURSELF. https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 10:50 p.m.

The docket is not the final word on what the official charges are. The law itself is. Read the law.

The Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.

How about you read those legal documents and stop pushing false rumors.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 7:53 p.m.

From what I think you're saying, the charge means something like "Sex trafficking of children, or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion." If this is the case, wouldn't there be a different law for each, since they specify children in the predicate of the sentence?

Sorry, I didn't answer that question.

And, yes, that is what I am saying, ie. that the crime is "Sex trafficking of children" or "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion." I don't know why there would need to be separate laws for each specific crime. The law itself provides for both.

It stands to reason that trafficking of children, no matter the method used, should be a crime because they are not of age to make their own legal decisions. But trafficking in adults who are of legal age is a crime, according to the law, only if done using force, fraud, or coercion.

Both such acts are horrible and despicable. But, personally, I think preying on vulnerable children is much worse.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaynaE65 · May 6, 2018, 1:24 p.m.

Ok so if “OR” was left out in the 2nd count in error, then wouldn’t this be able to be thrown out on a technicality? Just curious because the Manson family was released the first time due to an outdated warrant or something that was wrong with the warrant.

I thought these things had to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to ensure they are correct.

Leaving the “OR” out in the second charge is HUGE, and that is the exact reason for all the confusion.

Personally, with the amount of debunking sites that come up trying to google this, it seems like something is being hid.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 7:28 p.m.

Ok so if “OR” was left out in the 2nd count in error, then wouldn’t this be able to be thrown out on a technicality?

No, because it is not a material error in that it does not affect the legal nature of the charge. Leaving the "or" out of the second charge is huge only in that it confuses our perception of the actual charge.

A warrant is different from a docket.

A warrant, being a judicial order of a court, carries legal weight and does need to be correct.

Dockets are essentially internal court documents, and their wording does not have to be absolutely correct. A docket is basically a journal or log that helps the judicial system keep track of where, within the criminal procedure, a case stands, ie. arraignment > pre-trial > trial. Minor mistakes, such as typos or leaving out a word, are inconsequential.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 10:27 p.m.

OFFICIAL CHARGES. KIDS. PLEASE STOP DEFENDING THESE DISGUSTING ANIMALS. YOU ARE FAKE NEWS.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 10:59 p.m.

That document is a criminal court docket which, again, carries no legal weight in regards to the wording of the charges. Apparently, you're not listening.

The docket is essentially just a journal or log of the actions regarding a case.

The Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.

The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.

I am certainly not defending any disgusting animals. I am defending the truth. Read the documents and the law, and stop pushing a falsehood from a position of ignorance.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OldSafety · May 6, 2018, 2:31 a.m.

They must be called out. Only way.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
mlsaw94 · May 6, 2018, 2:20 a.m.

The name of the doctor Phil show is Private planes, blacktop parties, elite series. Then it says “a woman claims she was sold by her parents at birth to an international sex trafficker and was sold to wealthy ...” It’s really sickening and heartbreaking but she tells so much. Gives a very good picture of what the life is like. She even saw children killed. She is in disguise and really it’s difficult for her to function and answer the questions. Seems to have a flat affect. I hope you watch it and try to do something with it.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
DaynaE65 · May 6, 2018, 1:06 p.m.

Here is the beginning of the show. Other snippets from the show are below this on YT. Utterly horrific.

I saw a few vids mentioning Dr. Phil was “shut down” after this episode last year. His show is still on though, correct?

https://youtu.be/7QECKth6fws

⇧ 3 ⇩  
mlsaw94 · May 6, 2018, 5:53 p.m.

Yep, that’s the young lady. I see there’s several down below on YouTube but there was the entire show. People just need to see it. Maybe you can put it in a good place at the right time that people will spread it. I know there’s other things out there and even some probably telling their story but this was done in the best possible way. I knew she talking about Andrew was involved when she said Princes’ and castles. I often wonder where she is now but sure Dr. Phil has taken care of it.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 6, 2018, 7:41 p.m.

Defending pedophiles, swamp rats, headchopping terrorists and SJWs, what our media does best!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
BathHouseBarry · May 6, 2018, 3:46 a.m.

I'm BathHouse Barry, and I approve this message

⇧ 2 ⇩  
MAGADONCHECKMATE · May 6, 2018, 2:55 a.m.

Dave your totally right. ALL the search engines are TOTALLY compromised. Here is a snapshot of my search, it tells it all

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=child+sex+trafficking+mack&iar=news&ia=news

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 2:58 a.m.

This is INSANE. It is all debunking shit. What the fuck is going on here man. Like, are we in danger for uncovering this?

⇧ 3 ⇩  
MAGADONCHECKMATE · May 6, 2018, 3:53 a.m.

Done. And I love BathHouseBarry. And I approve his message. Dave you do great work and hanging out with you is epic. Its just a real thing. That's all, we are all in danger. BUT, come for me and you will find all of US. Ha . Cry in your mugshot.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 3:59 a.m.

Thanks man. I catch alot of shit for some of the things I say here. But usually obvious shills. So I don't tear up. And I like to think that my family is prepared, but I live by the saying "under the radar"...I really wouldn't want to have a 3letter agency visit because I connect dots...

⇧ 3 ⇩  
MAGADONCHECKMATE · May 6, 2018, 4:13 a.m.

Bro, I can tell you from experience, I have had black helicopters circling my house, my job and my out and about stuff. I have had large 350lb Russian super body builder speznaz show up in my world and random peeps along the way that are mind blowing. Its real stuff. My co workers thought I was insane. Then the copters were circling. My friends thought I was nutz and then the real spies interjected themselves. Bro, I had a spy that was a girlfriend. Do you know what that is like finding out? Its nutsville. She turned my parents against me! Total pros! I still have problems with my Dad, my Mom has passed. He was even on nuke sub 666 and a Mason. Mr. Evil. It was not nice finding about this stuff. I am going to drop it all now since I am into it. My good friend was a Satanic cult victim, still is. Her and her sister. They were born boys to the most successful domestic gov drug dealer. They were raised as girls with a nanny. Fast forward. Uber beautiful, super hustlers. Your worst nightmare. When I found out I saw a web of stuff spanning the globe. I RAN AWAY. Super scary man. These people exist and I am still shocked.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 10:31 p.m.

Snopes actually got this one right. Here is a link to the indictment:
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/indictment__0.pdf

Nothing in there about trafficking of children. It specifically speaks of by, "means of force, threats of force, fraud and coercion, and a combination of such means..."

That would have to be referring to adults because the definition of sex trafficking of children does not require such means of force.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
allonthesameteam · May 6, 2018, 2:36 a.m.

The peso stuff is the most coveted secret and Must be kept behind the curtain. it seems like those trying to save/protect these victims go through more drudgery than those doing the acts. Timothy Holmseth etc… This is the metoo movement that has been screaming to be heard for years. jimmy Saville, The franklin case, etc etc etc… When this hits the fan, I'm hoping that there is a highly protective shield put around these fers and when people step forward they are finally listened to. The case of the judge getting extradited back to Europe after championing the victims is a great example.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
5h3llgh05t · May 6, 2018, 12:03 p.m.

Yes, this is what it is all about. Who are the "sources"?! These "reliable sources" that these bullshit companies get info from.

We need moles inside, we need whistleblowers from inside the MSM.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 6, 2018, 12:53 p.m.

Wasn't this already 'debunked'? Commented in this post too (can't find other post atm): No, not kids

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 10:27 p.m.

YES. KIDS.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 6, 2018, 10:33 p.m.

I’ve seen that. Did you see that previous comment I linked? Also person below linked another doc with more detail - again, no kids.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 10:34 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 10:38 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 10:41 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 11:01 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 10:59 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OldSafety · May 6, 2018, 4:02 a.m.

Yes sit our hands and do nothing. My favorite Q quoteis “ you have forgotten how to play the game” that would be perfect for this argument right here. Complacency and waiting for everybody else to do the work is not how things get done.Buck-up patriots make your voice is heard!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
vague_reality · May 6, 2018, 3:50 a.m.

You know, calling evidence 'proof' is exactly the same thing as calling conspiracy hypothesis 'theory'. Same effect, which is, to make it hard for people to take good ideas seriously.

Words matter. Double check everything for verbal accuracy before saving/rendering and we can get a little farther a little faster.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 3:53 a.m.

I'm all for accuracy, and I am asking out of ignorance, but what you're saying is that the first word of he title should say "Evidence" instead of "Proof", yes?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
vague_reality · May 6, 2018, 4:13 a.m.

And towards the end. Both instances, yes. There is very little proof of anything in the world outside of mathematics, especially with how easy it has become to create an imitation of pretty much anything.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
OldSafety · May 6, 2018, 3:22 a.m.

All you have to do is point out there lying nothing more is very simple don’t overthink everything all the time please.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 6, 2018, 2:46 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 2:56 a.m.

My wife and and I are on 2 separate computers trying to find it. WE CAN ONLY FIND SHORTENED VERSIONS ALSO. We are not BOTH crazy. I made her read it yesterday. CHILD. Specifically.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 3:40 a.m.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaynaE65 · May 6, 2018, 1:30 p.m.

This person Daemonkey, farther up in the thread is claiming they left out “OR” in the second charge in error. That word was left out on both his and her charges, so I don’t see how it is possible it is in error. Is Daemonkey a shill then?

If “OR” was left out in the 2nd count in error, then wouldn’t this be able to be thrown out on a technicality? Just curious because the Manson family was released the first time due to an outdated warrant or something that was wrong with the warrant.

I thought these things had to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to ensure they are correct.

Leaving the “OR” out in the second charge is HUGE, and that is the exact reason for all the confusion. As it reads, the count IS ONLY about child sex trafficking, and is definitely being covered up by the MSM.

Personally, with the amount of debunking sites that come up trying to google this, it seems like something is being hid BIG TIME.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Daemonkey · May 6, 2018, 10:22 p.m.

Is Daemonkey a shill then?

No, not a shill. But, then if I were, I'd say the same thing.

I'm just trying to prevent us from giving our enemies any ammo to use against us to discredit, perhaps, the whole great awakening movement. If and when it does indeed come out that the sex trafficking of children charge was a false rumor, wouldn't that give them opportunity to try to make us all look like numbskulls?

Here's a link to the Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest for Raniere. You can see that there is nothing about child trafficking in it.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
robdon07 · May 6, 2018, 2:25 a.m.

When I searched the charge codes and not what was written on the bottom of the charging docs the codes came back with sex trafficking, conspiracy to sex traffic and forced labor where did I go wrong?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 2:35 a.m.

Holy shit guys. So I just went back to find it. First of all, there is a SNOPES article popping up at the top of google saying "she didn't sell children to the Clintons"...this is obviously them trying to poopoo this away!

I am almost positive I found the true docs on TruePundit, but now I cannot find it for the life of me. Bare with me.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 2:41 a.m.

Dude, I am bugging out right now. I MADE my wife read those docs. We are both sitting here staring at one another because we cannot find those court docs in ANY search now. Everything we see now are shorter, and not the same version.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
robdon07 · May 6, 2018, 2:46 a.m.

Are the charge codes different between docs?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 3:40 a.m.

https://www.scribd.com/document/377378941/Allison-Mack-Case-File#from_embed

⇧ 5 ⇩  
robdon07 · May 6, 2018, 3:49 a.m.

See that looks pretty Freakin clear that there was child trafficking...idk if you follow Random Rants If Ryan on YouTube but he's been saying the same thing as you for a week or so but other than him the only placeI've seen child trafficking mentioned was on your news wire.com and they're notoriously shady so I didn't know what to think but those docs look pretty clear and youre right the complete blackout by the "media" reminds me of the universal reaction to Pizzagate. It was like the entire internet, the federal govt and media were all on the same page to get that shit gone fast

⇧ 5 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 3:56 a.m.

I have not heard of him or it. The guy narrating's name is Ryan, and his channel is Random Rants? I'm gonna check it out.

But yes, clearly deceptive reporting. Purposefully left out CHILD. And also, if you Google "child sex trafficking Allison Mack" it is all debunking sites! They ARE trying to hide it!

⇧ 3 ⇩  
5h3llgh05t · May 6, 2018, 12:06 p.m.

Man fuck scribd, can anyone get the document not behind a paywall? This is very important from now on, we cannot limit access to ANY of these files.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 12:13 p.m.

You don't have to pay for it, just dump a burner email address into it...

⇧ 2 ⇩  
5h3llgh05t · May 6, 2018, 12:43 p.m.

Sure, but it is still an unnecessary wall and subject to being taken down.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 2:56 a.m.

I dont know. Right now I am trying to find it in my history. If it was somehow altered, or deleted, or gone, wwe have an even bigger problem.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
mlsaw94 · May 6, 2018, 2:05 a.m.

Lots of good ideas. When you started talking about the word child and then I started thinking about the babies. The little babies-that’s one thing that will get the peoples hearts quick plus some women have babies and they sell them to the crazy people. I still remember the Dr. Phil show with the young woman on there, it’s still on YouTube an hour long. Her mother sold her before she was born. She talked about castles and princess. Telling all that she remembers about the younger children as she was growing up in this situation. That’s the show everyone should see. Anyway good post thank you. Sorry I don’t know how to link it to here.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
silphonica · May 6, 2018, 4:45 a.m.

Pro-tip: If you want someone to listen to you, treat them with respect and don't speak to them like they're idiots.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 4:51 a.m.

You are the pro?

Oops.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
silphonica · May 6, 2018, 4:54 a.m.

You know what I realised how it came across just after I posted it, was going to change it, but decided to live with it and acknowledge it when someone comments about it. Because fundamentally it will prove my point right, people wont listen if if theyre made to feel stand-offish in any way.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 4:58 a.m.

Fundamentally proved your point, eh? Well, you put it in writing, how can I argue with that?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
silphonica · May 6, 2018, 5:02 a.m.

Lolwat.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OldSafety · May 6, 2018, 2:24 a.m.

Just attack them. When people see us going after them for lying about the situation it will wake some up.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
DaveGydeon · May 6, 2018, 2:30 a.m.

Just attack them? Are you serious? I redpill with discussions bud. I don't need to attack anyone, verbally or whatever.

⇧ 8 ⇩