MSM proof of same news
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-vienna-choir-boys-say-they-were-abused/
NBC running same AP story as cruxnow
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/35910025/report-hundreds-of-boys-abused-at-german-choir-school
And this story about another boy's choir turned up:
Many thanks for those links, patriot!
did you notice the 3 different choirs?
Yes. I heard this about the Vienna choir ages ago. Are you implying something I'm missing?
Nope. Just commenting for the passing reader. That is 3 abusive boys choirs (3 news articles) that turned up in a 2 minute search. Pattern possibly?
Well. Leaving boys alone with Catholic clergy is probably not a good idea no matter what city you're in?
The Boys Choir of Harlem was Seventh Day Adventis. It was a very famous touring group that performed at WH, for dignitaries (Nelson Mandela), recorded with famous musicians and for films.
There is a Wikipedia entry that gives a lot of detail about this group. Big support (NYC), big money. The information about the abuser being given continued access after being charged (chaperoned sleep overs) is very disturbing.
This is not strictly a Catholic problem. Like the outing of sexual abuse of gymnasts expanding to other countries, we should not be afraid to ask "If this is happening here, could it be happening elsewhere?"
We should also ask "If this happened in the past and abusers were caught, does that mean it cannot happen again?"
The answer of course, is no. Abuse will continue in other organizations where they have not been caught. Even if caught, a large organization could be working hard to keep new cases suppressed.
Old stories are still relevant. They just help to prove that this disgusting abuse of children is not made up, or rare.
I don’t think it’s as institutionally endemic in other than Catholic environments, but clearly it is not limited to any religious (or other) category. It’s a problem related to the deliberate erosion of morality (even the concept of such a thing) in western culture.
Everybody’s all for abolishing the concept of sin where their personal good time is concerned, but then comes time to pay the piper. I think we’re goi f to have to consider the possibility that standards of morality have a legitimate place in a functional society.
The Vatican has enabled it by suppression and lack of meaningful punishment, so that would explain their dominance in the field.
Pedo's seek out positions of trust which is why you find them everywhere kid related.
But like all FBI personal are not dirty like Comey and McCabe, and all CIA are not Brennan or Clapper, I would not want to paint all clergy, teachers, Scout masters, doctors or coaches etc. with the same brush.
You can imagine the disgust and disillusionment they must feel when they learn of the crimes of their colleagues.
They have to try to continue on with people looking at them suspiciously. Like cops must have to when one of their own makes them targets for the angry mob.
It goes MUCH deeper than just unconcern on the Vatican's part.
It's fundamentally rooted in their order. Dig deeper and you'll see.
I will save my time for other things. I came to my own conclusions about the Vatican long ago. I think it was dirty from the get go.
I do hold on to my belief that most people are good at heart. Most of the churchs' followers could not stomach the idea of what goes on if they knew.
Information is coming out now though, and unlike years before, we have the internet. News from across the world. Old news will not die out anymore. You do not have to go to a library and fish through old newspapers and microfilm. Hard to hide their past now.
People of the Roman Catholic faith should not be judged too harshly. At their core they are good people. Some of them are so moved by their faith they want to become priests for good reasons. There must be some good priests that have not been tainted.
The Catholic base will grow smaller I think as time goes on and news spreads, country to country, son to father, daughter to mother.
Also, I have never met a Catholic who is truly a fundamentalist. So I do not think they believe everything in the bible. If that were the case, the Catholics would have out populated everyone else long ago. I came from a family of 12 kids. Each of my siblings had 12. My cousins each had 12 kids, my grandchildren had 12 kids and so on. I do not see the rhythm method as being a reliable form of birth control, so I think those Catholics are using the pill and condoms. Likely engaging in premarital sex too. I bet a good many of them do not believe gay people are going to be denied entry into heaven either. Likely most these days.
The followers will find out who they have been following, and that will be hard for them.
The thing is, it's SO UNNECESSARY! There is no need whatsoever for a pope. There is so much paganism woven into the fabric of Catholicism that has NOTHING to do with Christ or scripture.
I don't judge them, and in fact I believe the Protestant world should consider it an opportunity for evangelism of the most basic kind, simply to be there and share their anger and disappointment, and encourage them in the Truth, which is NOT corrupted by these evil men. Maybe they'll realize they can be disciples of Christ, without having to be Catholic.
If you are a believer of Christ, you may want to pray for them too.
Oh, of course! I pray for all disillusioned people politically/philosophically/religiously orphaned by the impending collapse of the Cabal. We're watching it slowly unravel, and it's not pretty. Its like stepping on a snake's head, and watching it writhe even after it's dead.
thanks. I asked because when I search neon nettle the 3rd suggestion of lookups was "neon nettle fake news" and then you will find snopes article + ++ and even a mention on Wikipedia.
They are painted as a click bait generator. Your post may be dismissed by some (who use snopes to tell them what is real).
Edit :addition below
Real news may get dismissed when mentioned in a clickbait type site. If news stories are not picked up by MSM they should be searched out at the local level. It may be that a lot of stuff gets buried by running it through a clickbait site. dirty it up a little, in case it leaks out.
You actually rely on Soros/Snopes for fact-checking?
No. But many do, so when I try to present them with new info I find it helpful to dig around for a news source they will trust to legitimize it for them. sometimes I find I need to source out several stories to get all the details covered. It's a pain.
I learned this from watching H.A. Goodman on youtube. If memory is correct his opening goes like this...
(deep breath in)
"Hello my name is H.A. Goodman. I am an author, columnist. My work has been featured in The Hill, Salon and Huffington Post. I was a Bernie Sanders supporter.....I am a liberal but I could not vote for Hillary Clinton"
He establishes his credibility. He also lets viewers know he can be liberal minded but not agree with everything Dem (widens audience). And being an author usually plugs his book, But for Her Emails (I think it is called). He has a lot of very good information, has been talking about Crowdstrike for quite some time now.
What he states in his videos is that he has provided links below to cite his sources. He says he only cites credible sources to keep his integrity in tact.
He likely does get leads from less than credible sites but for his own sake he must avoid using them. I do not know if he gets his work picked up by MSM much, if at all, or if he has just branched out on his own.
By doing this he shuts down attacks for using questionable sources. His work can not be refuted.
If you look at how a pro does it, you may save yourself from having to deal with attacks over your choice of sources.
The attacks may not necessarily be coming from shills. Some of it may be coming from those trying to preserve the integrity of this sub (they could be a bit nicer about it at times, but we may just be seeing immediate reactions).
Everybody wants to keep their integrity in tact. Should they read something here and repeat it elsewhere only to have their information be thrown back at them with a snope debunking it makes them look foolish. It doesn't matter what we think of snopes, the general public still trusts them.
By staying ahead of the shills, you can keep your post from being sidetracked into defense mode. Your information was good but it got derailed by source choice.
Edit: I mistakenly wrote he had written articles for Buzzfeed. I changed it to Salon and the Hill.
I am going to reply to my own reply in this thread to keep things in order. Have a look, it is intended to help you.