Pizzagate Subverse Network
/v/AskPizzagate – Pizzagate-related questions
/v/pizzagatewhatever – anything Pizzagate-related
/v/PizzagateMemes – Pizzagate memes
/v/pizzagatemods – meta concerns and Pizzagate moderation discussion
For Newcomers
Submission Rules
See also "subverse best practices"
Policy on linking dangerous research
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
4: Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
5: You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.
6: No Link Posts -- Only editable submissions made with the "Discuss" button are allowed. "Link" submissions have been banned by the community for the reasons described here. Link posts will be immediately removed.
Adspam, illegal content, and personal info about Voat subscribers will be removed, and the offender will be banned.
Moderator Rules and Removal Explanations
Submission Removal Log
WARNING! Due to the nature of this investigation, clicking some links could result in opening incriminating material. Always practice common sense before clicking links, and make sure you're browsing safely.
Use archive.is to archive sources.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] chris [S] 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago (edited ago)
Are you saying the video I linked is disinfo? He seems like he does some pretty good research and doesn't at all seem like disinfo to me, just a rational analysis of pizzagate evidence. The video is pro-pizzagate afterall.
What he says in that video is that those terms weren't something documented by the FBI, that a random /pol/ user just said that and people ran with it. It's entirely possible they were around and have been used and I'll check out that documentary, but do you have anything not in video form that would serve as proof for that?
[–] Are_we__sure 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
The issue is the pzzagate evidence is incredibly weak. It's mostly speculation that is used as a basis for other speculation. It's simply not an honest investigation and it never was. It started from the POV of people who felt Clinton was horrible and must be destroyed. It was started by dedicated enemies of Clinton and Podesta who went hunting for ammuition to be used against them. And they didn't care if they had to distort what was in the emails or lie about them. There's simply no honest reading of the emails that gets you pedophilia-Satanism-cannibalism-trafficking, etc. So you have to change the meaning of the emails and come up with some code to make them seem sinister.
In this way provocative performance art by an internationally acclaimed artist became Satanism. In this way a pretty boring set of emails becomes the fodder for other people's paranoid fantasies.
If you really want to look into this, put all the Pizzagate stuff out of your head and read all the emails, one after another and see if they seem spooky to you. Then you'll see how much effort went into manufacturing this scandal.
[–] whatonearth 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Most of them can't even keep their own nonsense straight. I bet this would be an interesting exercise: ask pizzagaters if they know (1) who made the dumb joke about "sacrificing a chicken to Moloch" in one of the leaked Clinton emails, and (2) what that person's political orientation/party affiliation is. I bet for the vast majority of them they won't know the answer to part 1 (or they'll get it wrong) and they'll probably guess wrong on part 2.
(Answers: it was written by Lew Amselem, a now-retired foreign service officer, and if you read his blog The DiploMad you will see he constantly trashes liberals, Democrats, and Hillary Clinton in particular with arch sarcasm while calling for the State Department to be "drastically slashed and reformed".)
edit: Also, the context of the message was a description of some faint glimmers of hope for resolving the political crisis that was happening in Honduras at the time; to underscore his hopes that things might work out, he makes a joking reference to various traditional good-luck charms and rituals (crossed fingers, rabbit's foot, offering to the gods).
[–] DarkMath 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
"is disinfo"
Disinfo would imply the guy is lying. But he might just be wrong. Either way the fact "those terms weren't something documented by the FBI" doesn't mean the don't exist.
Do some more research to prove it to yourself. You might start by watching "Chicken Hawk". The word "Buck" most definitely exists and is a pedophile code word.
:-D
[–] chris [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Like I said, I'm going to watch that documentary, but lets be clear about one thing here: Burden of proof lands on those making the claims. If you're making the claims that it existed before pizzagate (with the exception of CP), then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim, and a documentary is not evidence. The evidence the documentary references should be something you have at least verified to exist and should be something you have read and could reference when people ask. How do you know the documentary itself isn't just making things up and referencing evidence that isn't real?