28 thoughts on “NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM FEB 28 2019”

  1. Robert Barricklow

    Just a short note on censorship, early in this 21st century. An author’s who mentioned by Dr. Farrell & others here, including myself tells of how this is effecting him. He flat-out calls a spade a spade/more than one of my books have been removed from Amazon[his main sales income platform]. The reasons were non-specific; but we know the reason: investigative journalism at its best.
    Not only hit by Amazon on one flank; but Facebook & Twitter are significantly extinguishing his social media visibility at the same time.
    Censorship that targets author’s income & time[trying to correct the monopoly platform unjustified behaviors].
    The 21st century’s constriction of free quality information flows continues to tighten & tighten, despite public demand.

  2. As usual there are many people here whose sentiments I share without prejudice and in full agreement. I am also in the same camp as Dr. Farrell when he says this whole situation is disturbing on so many levels. Since so many are voicing similar concerns already I’m choosing a slightly different tact from this point forward. There is another vector to this judicial load that must be explored. Keep in mind, I am looking at this from the point of view of a potential juror for a similar case in a United States Court somewhere in my own home district at a future time. With the potential for this occurring here in my home town, here are my thoughts in the matter. As you can see it’s all about questions.

    Problem #1: What is the “real” evidence other than the accusation? In my mind the question isn’t whether something traumatic happened to both of these persons. There are indications that something did happen to them. The questions are: was the accused the perpetrator of the crime? How was this trauma remembered? What procedures were used to identify the source of the trauma? Who provided the services for the therapies and what where their methods? What connections did they have to an intelligence network, if at all? Granted, as a peculiarity in British commonwealth law, the burden of proof lies not on the accuser—but the accused. In the British system the courts tend to favor the aggrieved—meaning the juror’s focus is far removed from the accuser to the accused. In the American system the shoe is on the other foot—which explains perhaps part of the reason why everyone was so surprised at the verdict. It raises the question of whether the defense of the accused’s legal team was weak and the ruling sympathetic.

    Problem #2: How deeply entrenched were the judge and jury philosophically within the post-modern form of liberalism there in Melbourne where the trial was held? As a potential juror, this is also a fair, open question. Virtually every court here in the United States has problems in the judicial sector with post-modern liberal ideology. In certain types of cases the court is even biased to the victims of the alleged crime—permitting some types of evidence that is strictly from psychiatric notes—but excluding other facts which prevent the discussion of potential behaviors that contradict the desired outcome. What was the nature of the evidence used to elicit a conviction? What was its chain of custody? What were the legal foundations for decisions made regarding any excluded evidence? Is there any evidence from the juror’s point of view suggesting that the case might have been biased against the accused?

    As distasteful as these questions are, let me remind the readers of two historical events that demand to be considered by anyone sitting in the jury seat of any trial. (I would add personal observations as the foundation of these concerns also. I have known two jurors who were totally dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial they sat upon, who were denied an opportunity to do the right thing, were convinced by the majority to not declare a hung jury, and to agree with the majority out of compassion for the accuser. I wished it had only happened once. How can one have confidence in a system when the jury itself can be so easily compromised by emotional response than by genuine evidence? Both were civil cases and involved sums of money, so the majority opinion was: what’s the harm? Healthy suspicion assists the cause of justice by preventing injustice against the innocent to the financial benefit of an accuser.) First, there is the uncomfortable matter of more than 20 executions for the crime of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts in the 1700’s by accusation alone. In reality there may have only been one “witch” guilty. Even then, the form of witchcraft in question may have been sympathetic magic at a minimum or voodoo at a maximum. Second, there is the uncomfortable matter of the Duke lacrosse scandal in the 2006, where a stripper accused a members of the university’s lacrosse team of rape because she did not receive adequate compensation for services performed—which may or may not have included any sexual activity. In that case, based on my own readings at the time, we have a genuine situation where there was prosecutorial bias towards victims rights, with support from a sympathetic medical community. Because of the case had racial overtones, I cannot, from the information available, determine whether a crime was, or was not, committed in the case. All I can comment upon was the absence of proof in the “public” trial, the “media circus” from the civil rights community, the shameful and disgraceful behavior of Duke University’s administrative team, and the callous behavior of the accused player’s families toward the whole episode. There was never any trial. The accuser slinked away as her story crumbled. The legal system took a severe blow and potentially damaged the plight of victims here in this country who require a system for addressing genuine grievances without fear or retribution. In both of these cases everyone lost something of their faith and good will toward their community; the cause of justice, compromised. In both cases there was a presumption of guilt by the community without dealing with hard evidence. It’s the evidence for the crime that counts—not the accusation. There is nothing in this article to me that reads any different than coverage from the Duke lacrosse scandal of 2006—except there was a trial and a conviction. The way the story is presented is with a presumption of guilt—and that is why I describe CNN as an acronym for: “See, No News.” All they offer is informed affirmation of a foregone conclusion. I’m so comforted by their sense of justice (says I sarcastically.)

    Problem #3: The use of secrecy in all phases of the litigation process provide advantage to one party against the other. There are times when secrecy is required for serious, legitimate and moral reasons. It’s been my observation that the more sensational the spectacle, the more critical secrecy becomes to protect one side of the situation from harm and to bias public opinion against the other. One case, to me, that represents the use of secrets by both sides to achieve a “desired” outcome from the American Jurist Prudence system is: the “OJ Simpson murder trail” in 1995. (In my mind the justice system, in the form of Judge Ito, acted less as a referee and more as a participant to engineer the outcome of the trial. The pressure he was under might have ben enormous—but he made the choice to keep the trial open. Why? Could this have been for the purpose of demonstrating the necessity of legislation known as the DNA Identification Act of 1994? Why are these two things joined at the hip in the historical timeline? Was there a hidden hand here, too?) This one was rammed down our collective throats in an high-level social engineering experiment of proportions I have not seen since the JFK and MLK assassination events. As someone who could have been a juror at the time if the trial was held in an alternate state, to this day I cannot tell you whether the evidence collected and presented matched the verdict given in the criminal case. The legal commentators during the trial were just as pathetic as the play by play presentation of reporters for case presented in public—with the public and the media giving each other huge slaps on the back for opening up the system to present it to the US public and provide us a taste how the system operates. For the record I am predisposed to believe OJ Simpson got away with murder in a criminal sense, because, as a potential juror, I am very much aware that people can turn what begins as a crime of passion into murder quickly when given ample time and opportunity. OJ Simpson had a questionable background, criminal associations, an egotistical arrogance and a quick temper at this period in his life. He was also an exceptional athlete, had a huge following within the sports community and was pegged as a media superstar by those in the entertainment promotion community. Yet none of this matters. What truly matters is the evidence, it’s provenance, it’s chain of custody. Two peoples lives were taken—and the Constitutional priority for the accused was the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If that cannot be protected and litigated to a just conclusion, how can the investigation or outcome be satisfactory to the cause of justice? Because this has the appearance of a staged public event, I believe the case for the Constitution was seriously compromised in 1995. Was the trial against Cardinal Pell in Melbourne, the British equivalent to the OJ Simpson trail with a similar hidden objective?

    Problem #4: What is the whole legal system really about? As a potential jurist for any type of criminal or civil case, because of so many missteps, misdeeds and manipulations from so many stake holders in the judiciary enterprise, (and trust me, since the US courts all now litigate using maritime law rather than constitutional law, it’s truly an enterprise in its basest form,) I am constantly bombarded with reasons to conclude that the judicial system’s primary interest is not justice. Its purpose has become the defense of a vision of an economic and legal structure under construction by a post-modern set of premises toward a new, ideal justice system. I’ve arrived at this conclusion after given careful thought to several high-level cases (both litigated by trial and by public opinion), observed behavior by members of the legal system and the media reporting it. continued descriptions of the “living legal system” by its advocates as an organism whose growth is demanded as part the foundation for an evolving community, and by the Congressional response to various incidents with convenient new laws responding to the event. I cannot take comfort in a system that does not have well defined boundaries and shifting currents. The foundations of the American system is not stone—but sand. With so many forms of legislation enacted into law in the past 50 years that sand has not hardened into cement by limestone—but has become more porous than quicksand. With so much Congressional gerrymandering of Constitution Law to new, convenient, fascistic frontiers I cannot wait until they construct the next monstrosity for DNA libraries, information security and digital economic banking systems.

    In deference to you, the reader, I’ll end the diatribe and say adieu. I pray the cause of justice was served in this decision and there were no shenanigans in play—but I’m not certain I will ever be assured. Still, the most troubling aspect of this trail and outcome to me is an additional series of questions many of you have asked. Who are the players being protected? What are the deeper crimes of which this set is only a fleeting glimpse? Has the State decided to use these issues to break the back of Christian belief in the legal and political system using the most banal and sadistic set of behaviors as a club to open up new frontiers for the spread of new sexual freedom? If this man’s criminality and guilt are so egregious that they demand public exposure, do they have any intention to pursue the greater crimes by the larger, most powerful members of that community who are not protected by the canonical code of silence? Call me hypersensitive, but I cannot help but think the breakage of the canonical code of silence is the real goal. There is no question that code is used to protect people and the church has committed great Sin in expunging the record—but the people who are most culpable for the commission of the greater crimes are the very people who wish to strip their own asset from the arsenal of their enemies. If the true case for justice were pursued secular authorities would best clean their own cage before cleaning that of the church. As a potential juror, I am watching. As much as I might mistrust canonical secrecy, I trust judicial manipulation and chicanery even less.

    1. Robert Barricklow

      As w/most of the Deep State trails; rarely do the real criminals do any time. If found guilty; it’s usually a fine. When someone of note does take a fall; it’s usually a set-up patsy not very high on up their salt/fat food chain.

      1. Robert Barricklow

        Or, is not even brought to trial.
        Instead, she becomes the 1st female U.S. president

        1. Precisely. The higher the crime the lesser the penalty. If Cardinal Pell is guilty he deserves fair punishment. How much more so do persons like the one whose name you didn’t mention deserve their just reward? That administration is just as bad as the 12 years before it. But if I’m right, that there is an intelligence component manipulating the legislative apparatus in the US since the 80’s, these crimes can never be prosecuted. These crimes fall into the category of corporate secrecy.

          1. Robert Barricklow

            Your right OrigensChild.
            In fact, many CIA operatives are now & have been running for office. One, that we know of, was President. Others are simply bought or blackmailed.
            Because of National Security we can’t investigate any further. State secrets. Or, more accurately, the corporate state doesn’t want their ongoing criminal crimes exposure to the worldwide public eye. Even though private power now exceeds public power.
            Fleming’s license to kill, with other power perks: steal, rape [children], etc., etc.

          2. Robert Barricklow

            The ones being showcased by “our” justice-for-all system, are just small fry, the likes of Bernie Madoff & Martha Stewart

          3. Robert Barricklow

            The there’s the proven corporate mass murders, the likes of Monsanto’s glyphosate.
            http://williamengdahl.com/englishNEO26Feb2019.php
            That requires pulling out the tried-and-true corporate PR playbook: deny, delay, deflect, dissemble; followed by decades long chronicles of lawsuits an a how-to of move fast and break things transnational monopoly ethos.

  3. RE: the “network” of pedophilia within the Catholic Church. One thing that struck Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro last year when their grand jury report was released, was something he found odd during that state’s investigation. He said that the local Church officials had lied and obfuscated the evidence to the state SECULAR authorities, but that those same Church officials had reported EVERYTHING to their seniors in Rome.

    Much of the Pennsylvania evidence was actually obtained via ROME’s files, not the local diocese files within Pennsylvania.

    Ever since the AG made that announcement, I have been wondering if the local bishops were faithfully reporting the incidents to Rome, not out of any sense of duty to stop the crimes, but because they were all participating in this vast NETWORK of information. Were they under obligation to report the cases because that’s how they keep the network alive?

    The Pennsylvania AG homepage for the diocese abuses is here:
    https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/report/

  4. The sources of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church can be traced to decrees from nearly a thousand years ago:
    https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church
    “Seventh Century – France: documents show that the majority of priest were married.
    Eighth Century – St. Boniface reported to the pope that in Germany almost no bishop or priest was celibate.
    1074 – Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives.
    1095 – Pope Urban II had priests wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned.”

    Sexuality is built-into our nature; it is a very strong force. Allowed natural outlets, it can be very beneficial. Shunned and twisted, it can lead to any number of perversions. The Catholic Church has to be aware of this. As the first thousand years of the Catholic Church showed, married priests were mostly fine within the clerical community. The Catholic Church should get back to its roots in this matter. I imagine most of the twisted behaviors would go away, with natural outlets…

    (Outside the Catholic Church, there is the sad possibility that abusees may become abusers in turn, without inner healing. However, I suspect that child sexual abuse is used as ‘insurance’ within higher circles. Compromise someone with these required-for-advancement acts – especially when they know it is filmed – and you have them for life. Bringing-down this type of network will be tough, as all-within are fanatic about the secrecy of the group…)

    1. jimmy boots rothstein is one of the cleaner and most effective cops in this line of work. he’s on video claiming 35 to 40% of d.c. is compromised and controlled in this. given behavior we can see, i argue it’s far higher. there’s a reason podesta’s and elefantis published their openly sado/maso child porn art in their restaurants and homes on facebook, twitter and all while gq posted them in the top 50 most powerful players in d.c. given that probability, who ya gonna call to clean this up?
      most of the authorities in such jurisdictions and departments are already compromised and involved in cover up.

      this system is intended to be this messed up. it was designed and built to be self sustaining and max control at the top. john decamp said it best in extras at end of conspiracy of silence
      www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=-x-IZS8uKYo
      it’s the plot behind billy budd. i disagree with decamp though. i think the system is corrupt. not just some of the more powerful players.

      1. my main evidence of that corruption includes the results of that system over thousands of years, the nature of that system and the ease with which corrupt results are sustained for so long by so many.

        not just in the rc church nor all the other religions either. it’s everywhere. marriage does not fix this problem either. demanding something as unreal as celibacy does indicate maximal bad intent. as in other comments, prohibitions of any idea / behavior maximizes the cost of that behavior. it increases demand for it and makes survival of less wealthy demographics less viable.

        1. Robert Barricklow

          Corruption is baked into the cake.

          Example: just look at the issuance of currency
          controlled by private power cartel[$].

  5. There has just been a 4-day meeting (a quasi-Synod) of bishops here in Rome on the abuse issue. Both the official media and social network comments here were rightly skeptical. There was no PUBLIC discussion of any use in the “dot-connecting” sense. As stated in the following article, “The (Pope’s) speech will be remembered by many less for what was said than what was not said. On a vast international stage, the Pope did not offer an apology to the victims. Nor, as was also the case throughout the summit, did he address all of the dark roots of the crisis.”
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-vatican-abuse-meeting-analysis

  6. Robert Barricklow

    Whenever it started; it has certainly grown beyond those roots to become international in breadth & scope. I suspect its beginning roots in secret societies with access to high finance & intelligence. I suspect its value came with blackmailing. I suspect the targets were those that increased the network & security of the sex rings. I suspect the intelligence aspects were then used to compartmentalize the cells to breach any security weaknesses. In other words, this network was born to increase their power.
    Every possible breach we know of has been effectively stovepiped. Even the to-be-aired documentary of the Washington DC connection was cancelled hours[if my memory serves me?] before broadcast.
    Was CIA intelligence director William Colby killed because of it? It’s vast & deep in its tentacles reach. It’s ruthless in its survival instincts and will not go quietly into the night.

    1. Robert Barricklow

      Secret courts? Proprietary concerns?
      Some secret child pedophile business models?
      Business secrets?
      No business of the public?

    2. www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=-x-IZS8uKYo
      conspiracy of silence. it’s what did come out after the franklin scandal. and yeh, i’m betting it’s what got cobly killed. curious that he stood by his best friend from a long cia career to do the right thing. after the phoenix program they ran in vietnam. it’s plain and clear by the timing of his death and the nature of his dissappearance that he got sealteamed in the standard wet op. wonder if the team tasked with it had a clue they were doing a dci emeritus.

      1. oh yeh that’s right. who was the dci after colby during franklin scandal and iran contra?

  7. if nothing else perhaps more of us are getting the more pertinent fact in mind that the only real purpose of prohibiting anything (regardless how good or bad it is) is to raise the price and restrict access to that think or behaviour to all but the richest, greediest and most murderous minority. aka the psycho/sociopaths. aka the ruling class. this is not an idle complaint. read the science lit on the subject. understand the normal percentage of folk with these characteristics and then consider the percentage of ceo’s and leaders with the characteristics. the system is set up to train up and filter these individuals to the top. and give them all the power to continue this system.

    have i commented before how this all smells of “childhood’s end?”

    thank you doc. curious to see how soon, how many and which other blog authors grock onto these concepts. kinda reinforces the definition of apocolypse eh? wonder if in the past this is the reason for the breakaway civies to incite wars and resets with huge genocides to cover their trails. reminds me of a brit prince’s comments gloating about being so directly related to vlad the impaler.

    so perhaps what we’re slowly doing (not just this blog but the whole internet) is studying ponerology as foster gamble so pleasantly invited us to do at the end of his movie “thrive.” i didn’t wanna then and i don’t wanna study it now. i will not be a fan boy of old set. it does seem like wolves working harder and harder to make the sheep see the wolves.

    it does seem like nature routinely changes balance equations to the side of the prey as often as the predators, does it not? if that’s the case, these sheep might be a few millenia over due. wonder if there are any great pyranees hiding in that sheep herd? or border collies hiding in that wolf pack?

  8. listen to jimmy boots rothstein interviews on the utubes. he’s a pedo cop going back decades. most of the needed research is already done. especially now with existing surveillance and database systems.

  9. bankers are always involved. propaganda duo anyone? charlie manson’s another leg of this monster. so was dahmer and gacy.

    another dot to connect. complete, total and universal surveillance that we’re all too familiar with violating all of our privacies makes it clear that the folk with the most power (and surveillance and information) have all they need to know all the folk and all their sins. who ever wants to continue this with impunity can do so by controlling this information. who ever wants to fix this monstrosity can do this by controlling this information. who ever controls this information can and is being judged by whether or not this monstrosity is fixed.

  10. Pope Francis created a new department to oversee Vatican finances that report directly to hom, “the Pope”. To head tbis department, Francis chose an Australian, Cardinal George Pell. This redefines the secretary of state’s role to Pope Francis created a new department to oversee Vatican finances that report directly to the pope. “To head it, Francis chose an Australian who had never worked in Rome, Cardinal George Pell, a man far removed from the Italian-dominated Curia. This redefines the secretary of state’s role to help Pope Francis’s agenda in cleaning up the Curia” (way to go Francis!).

    Sounds like the Pope Francis changed the hierarchy from what was the 3rd top in command into what is now the 2nd top in command.

    This might mean the defrocking of the Queen, but if not the Rook’s defrocking, at least symbolically has occured. IMO, this sounds too good to be true and so there might be some other kind of agenda.

    For a reference go to Reuters dot com – 3/13/14, “In Vatican Shake-up, Pope redefines role of second-in command”

    Pope Francis’s agenda in “cleaning up the Curia” (way to go Francis!).

    Sounds like the Pope Francis changed the hierarchy from what was the 3rd position top in command into what is now the 2nd top in command.

    This might mean the defrocking of a, “Rook” or worse yet the, “Queen”.

    Sounds too good to be true and so there is probably some other kind of agenda ir damage control.

    For a reference go to Reuters dot com – 3/13/14, “In Vatican Shake-up, Pope redefines role of second-in command”

  11. Sex scandals in the church go back centuries pedophilia is just the most if it bleeds it leads for the media lately. Heterosexual scandals just drop off the radar of late yes this is a smokescreen hiding god knows what.

    1. right marcos and worse than that. think about some of these folk. and their systems. without their various devices and vices they have no incentive for their systems. the church as we know it evaporates. same is true for govt. without monsters to protect us sheeple from, who needs em? it’s literally that movie: the village.

      ever wonder why the powers that think they be give us the gift of predictive programming? it seems it’s not so predictive as much as it is predicting disclosures. and more importantly for the stockholming monsters, rationalizations for the continued stockholming of us sheeple.

      keep in mind while watching the movie, who the money and monsters are that produced that movie.

Comments are closed.