Thank you everyone who have stuck it out with our turbulence! We are currently unloaded over 300 new videos! So keep an eye on the site for new content, sections, and much more!
We updated our No Agenda section. If you have not been keeping up with this podcast, you need to catch up.
We are working on several documentaries, TV shows, and podcasts.
We could use your help. The more money we raise, the more time we can spend bringing you new content.
Please donate what you can below. Donations of $150 or more will get a 1TB hard drive with our entire archive mailed to them!
Sacred Owls BEWARE! TAKE CARE! SACRED OWLS 2018 U.S. TOUR TO BOHEMIAN GROVE’S CREMATION OF CARE PROTEST
This is it. The big one. The thing we have been fighting for almost 10 years now. So technically it is also the 10 YEARS OF THROWING IT THE FUCK DOWN TOUR, as well. We are facing our arch nemesis, The Bohemian Grove (Yes, that is the owl we put a buster on). We are teaming up with DarkDox, Coffins Collective, & Resist the Grove, Bohemian Grove Action and Resistance to bring you a 19 day, 12 state, U.S. Tour…
TO THE GATES OF THE BOHEMIAN GROVE TO PROTEST THEIR MENS ONLY (UNLESS YOU ARE A BOY) PEDO DEATH CULT CREMATION OF CARE OPENING CEREMONY TO THEIR SICK 2 WEEK ENCAMPMENT!
Starring: Henry Kissinger. Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush, his dad Magog, and all the other ghouls that make up the 1%!
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences
(source) “Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.” Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again. The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge. Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.” Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds. Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!” Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex. A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today. With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia. In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”. The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family! The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential. Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities … “Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.” As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of ‘child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … ‘childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.” Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing ‘bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a ‘bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”. Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation. In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.” The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE. In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts. After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people. Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”. Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences. But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said. It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular. Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.
BREAKING: David Hogg Can’t Get His Story Straight on Parkland Shooting Video Blocked on YouTube, which is Censoring and Disabling Live Stream to DarkDox because we posted it!
6-6-18 (DarkDox.com) I had a feeling about this one. When we first saw this video of David Hogg saying he was at two different places in two separate interviews during the first shots of the Parkland school shooting, that it would not be a very popular video among the gun grabbing goons that run Google.
That’s right! The video below has just earned DarkDox.com‘s illustrious badge of honor “BANNED ON YOUTUBE“!!! Click the image to download the banned video. It doesn’t end there! We also find it very fascinating that his house was “swatted” yesterday. We suspect that the call was made by Hogg himself or someone associated with them to have a platform to promote their March For Our Lives: Road to Change.
Why was this video banned on YouTube?
I’ll tell you why. It contains David Hogg making TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS as to where he was during the first shots of the Parkland school shooting. Not only did YouTube pull the video, the DISABLED DarkDox’s ability to LIVE STREAM on YouTube.
CIA November 2017 Release of Abbottabad Compound Material included Bloodlines of Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier
(DarkDox) This is an interesting one. I was going through the DarkDox archive and came across an audio book of Fritz Springmeier 13 ILLUMINATI BLOODLINES and wanted to post it, so Googled the title to get a decent quality cover for the thumbnail. To my surprise, the first link in the search was this…
I have never seen a book like this so openly on the CIA’s server. Also, the name Abbottabad Compound in the URL sounded vaguely familiar. So I backed up the URL closer to the root to find this…
November 2017 Release of Abbottabad Compound Material
In an effort to further enhance public understanding of al-Qa’ida, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on 1 November 2017 released additional materials recovered in the 2 May 2011 raid on Usama Bin Ladin’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
With the release of these materials, the information remaining in the collection that has not been released publicly includes materials that are protected by copyright; sensitive such that their release would directly damage efforts to keep the nation secure; pornography; malware; blank, corrupted, and duplicate files. The entire collection has been available to the US Intelligence Community and Department of Defense organizations for years.
So… This means that the PDF was on a computer at the Abbottabad Compound confiscated by the CIA when they “killed Bin Laden” It gets weirder. When you search through the directory of all the PDFs, it is not listed.
Download the audiobook (FLV) and the PDF below…
We are looking into starting a Roku Chanel which will make our content available on smart TVs and streaming boxes, free, through the DarkDox network! This takes mirrored servers to speed up our streaming capabilities in order to deliver content to users worldwide with no advertising, and no registration required. We also plan to work with documentary film makers to create DarkDox Exclusive programs. Help us take this to the next level!
This is it. The big one. The thing we have been fighting for almost 10 years now. Devil in the flesh. We are teaming up with DarkDox, Coffins Collective, Resist the Grove, & Resist Tyranny – Bohemian Grove Action and Resistance to bring you a 19 day, 12 state, U.S. Tour with Will Brack. Dougie Flesh and the Slashers are a hard maybe… stay tuned!
- Friday, July 6th Gainesville, Florida
- Saturday, July 7th Pensacola, Florida
- Sunday, July 8th New Orleans, Louisiana
- Monday, July 9th Austin, Texas
- Tuesday, July 10th El Paso, Texas
- Wednesday, July 11th Phoenix, Arizona
- Thursday, July 12th Los Angeles, California
- Friday, July 13th ” Santa Cruz, California”
- Saturday, July 14th Bohemian Grove, California
- Sunday, July 15th Bohemian Grove, California
- Monday, July 16th Reno, Nevada
- Tuesday, July 17th Salt Lake City, Utah
- Wednesday, July 18th ” Rawlins, Wyoming
- Thursday, July 19th Ogallala, Nebraska
- Friday, July 20th Boys Town, Nebraska
- Saturday, July 21st Kansas City, Missouri
- Sunday, July 22nd St. Louis, Missouri
- Monday, July 23rd Nashville, Tennessee
- Tuesday, July 24th Atlanta, Georgia
DarkDox.com is recruiting. We are a free, open source archive of documents, videos and audio files The concept is simple We upload files create thumbnails and code them into our pages This creates a responsive interface for users similar to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and countless video platforms Instead of just clicking and streaming we offer the ability to directly download the file and keep it, forever. This allows you to archive replicate, syndicate, duplicate, modify, & use in your videos, graphics projections, and more. It needs to stay free and anonymous. No advertising. We need your help if you know how to use FTP copy and paste basic HTML know how to use WordPress or Photoshop. We want new content daily. Our sections to grow. This will take a hardcore] technical team What we do is not hard, but it takes time. The more people we can trust that are working on this, the better it will be for everyone. There is no financial gain in the infowar only pride in being part of what could one day be the worlds largest, free, & anonymous source of multimedia to educate the masses. Email firstname.lastname@example.org to get started. This is information warfare.
National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200 Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (THE KISSINGER REPORT) December 10, 1974 CLASSIFIED BY Harry C. Blaney, III SUBJECT TO GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652 AUTOMATICALLY DOWNGRADED AT TWO YEAR INTERVALS AND DECLASSIFIED ON DECEMBER 31, 1980. This document can only be declassified by the White House. Declassified/Released on 7/3/89 under provisions of E.O. 12356 by F. Graboske, National Security Council CONFIDENTIAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4-17 Part One — Analytical Section Chapter I World Demographic Trends 19-34 Chapter II Population and World Food Supplies 34-39 Chapter III Minerals and Fuel 40-49 Chapter IV Economic Development and Population Growth 50-55 Chapter V Implications of Population Pressures for National Security 56-65 Chapter Vl World Population Conference 66-72 Part Two — Policy Recommendations 73 Section I A U.S. Global Population Strategy 74-84 Section II Action to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline: Population and a Development Assistance Strategy 85-105 A. General Strategy and Resource for A.I.D. 85-91 Assistance B. Functional Assistance Programs to Create 92-102 Conditions for Fertility Decline C. Food for Peace Program and Population 103-105 Section III International Organizations and other Multilateral Population Programs 106-107 A. UN Organization and Specialized Agencies B. Encouraging Private Organizations. EXECUTIVE SUMARY World Demographic Trends 1. World population growth since World War 11 is quantitatively and qualitatively different from any previous epoch in human history. The rapid reduction in death rates, unmatched by corresponding birth rate reductions, has brought total growth rates close to 2 percent a year, compared with about 1 percent before World War II, under 0.5 percent in 1750-1900, and far lower rates before 1750. The effect is to double the world’s population in 35 years instead of 100 years. Almost 80 million are now being added each year, compared with 10 million in 1900. 2. The second new feature of population trends is the sharp differentiation between rich and poor countries. Since 1950, population in the former group has been growing at O to 1.5 percent per year, and in the latter at 2.0 to 3.5 percent (doubling in 20 to 35 years). Some of the highest rates of increase are in areas already densely populated and with a weak resource base. 3. Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion m the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if a two-child family should become the norm in the future. Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development. 4. U.N. estimates use the 3.6 billion population of 1970 as a base (there are nearly 4 billion now) and project from about 6 billion to 8 billion people for the year 2000 with the U.S. medium estimate at 6.4 billion. The U.S. medium projections show a world population of 12 billion by 2075 which implies a five-fold increase in south and southeast Asia and in Latin American and a seven-fold increase in Africa, compared with a doubling in east Asia and a 40% increase in the presently developed countries (see Table I). Most demographers, including the U.N. and the U.S. Population Council, regard the range of 10 to 13 billion as the most likely level for world population stability, even with intensive efforts at fertility control. (These figures assume, that sufficient food could be produced and distributed to avoid limitation through famines.) Read the whole thing here.