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.
People ask why we do what we do. Why make a website of dark and terrible things with no ads, no way to make money, no way to gather emails and other data from you, no catch?
Are we religious? No, but we support your decision and right to practice a religion as long as it is harmless. If it is harmful, we are coming for you.
Are we victims of abuse? Aren’t we all?
What do we want? Accountability. When do we want it? Yesterday. The day before that. A thousand years ago. We have the technology. There is no reason for scum to get away with rape and murder unless good people do nothing because they are weak and afraid.
That is why we do what we do. Download these films, audio, dox, and burn DVDs, load hard drives, give them to friends, family, watch with them, have movie screenings, meet ups, project on the side of buildings, upload to YouTube, Facebook, everywhere you can. This is information warfare.
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…
Destroy Syria, Foreshadows Current Crisis
(ZeroHedge) Prophetically foreshadowing the current crisis (and apparent action plan), leaked CIA documents from the reign of Bashar al-Assad’s father in the 1980s show a Washington Deep State plan coalescing to “bring real muscle to bear against Syria,” toppling its leader (in favor of one amenable to US demands) , severing ties with Russia (its primary arms dealer), and paving the way for an oil and gas pipeline of Washington’s choosing.
As ActivistPost.com’s Brandon Turbeville detailed (just a day before Trump unleashed his Tomahawks), as the Syrian crisis enters its sixth year, the Donald Trump administration is looking more and more like the Obama administration every day. With the Trump regime refusing to open useful dialogue with Russia regarding Syria, its obvious anti-Iran and pro-Israel positioning, and support for a very questionable “safe zone” plan for Syria, the odds of a rational U.S. policy in regards to Syria has lower and lower odds of existence as time progresses.
Yet, despite the fact that the Trump administration is apparently poised to continue the Obama regime’s proxy war of aggression against the people of Syria, an example of seamless transition, it should also be remembered that the plan to destroy Syria did not begin with Obama but with the Bush administration.
Even now, as the world awaits the continuation of the Syrian war through a Democratic and Republican administration, the genesis of that war goes back to the Republican Bush administration, demonstrating that there is indeed an overarching agenda and an overarching infrastructure of an oligarchical deep state intent on moving forward regardless of which party is seemingly in power.
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!