Pizzagate true or false? Verdict: likely both a real scandal AND fake news.

I’ve been hearing about “Pizzagate” for a while. Reading another tweet without hearing any media commentary I decided to try to have a look to find out how convincing, if at all, the “evidence” was.

The first thing I notice is that it’s pretty difficult to find any websites that are putting the case for Pizzagate being real. This is the typical censorship that we get from Google and their ilk.

However I did find two sites:

  1. Wikileaks
  2. Massive Repository of Indisputable PizzaGate Evidence

The second I took as my “advocate for the prosecution”. This is full of snippets of biased evidence – for example repeating the reference to “Ping Pong” as if it were a reference to child sex, but ignoring that the restaurant owner’s name (appears to be) Mr Pong.

And because the article on “Pizzgate Evidence” was clearly trying to construe every possible piece of evidence in the worst possible light I chose as my test the least worst circumstances which would still be consistent with the evidence.

Main Non-Coincidental Evidence

I’ll just copy and paste the relevant information from Wikileaks:

  • 2007: Stratfor employee Chris Douglas asks, “Who all is in the Austin office today who is going to want pizza? We only have one slice and we need to know how thinly to slice it…” [11]
  • 2009: Stratfor discusses using same “waitresses” from President Barack Obama’s party in which $65,000 in “pizza” and “hot dogs” were flown to the White House.[12](archived version) This is against official White House policy.[13]
  • February: Stratfor CEO George Friedman frustrated by not being told what “Pizza Party” codeword means[15]
  • November: Stratfor employee Ben West asks if fellow employee Bayless Parsley is on list of pedophiles caught in recent sting[16]
  • January: Tony Podesta asks John Podesta, “Would love to get a pizza for an hour? Or come over,” and tells him, “I’m seated with the kids so little wired”[19]
  • September: John Podesta receives infamous email about “map that seems pizza-related” on a handkerchief of his[20]

 Verdict

Clearly there is coded language being used. Whatever “Pizza” refers to can be used for an hour. And this “pizza” and “hot dogs” seems to be officially sanctioned with a massive price tag of $65,000. It is clear there is a scandal of some sort here. But I see nothing except coincidental symbols (in the “evidence” article) to suggest paedophilia. Yes the symbols are similar – but from other research I know how easy it is to find likenesses like this and for example I’ve certainly doodled a triangle with a spiral myself.

So there is a real scandal, so, why aren’t the press investigating the real scandal?

The answer is almost certainly because someone has deliberately set out to muddy the waters of a real scandal by linking it to something so bizarre that the Fearty press won’t touch it. This is just what I was suggesting in my article: The use of conspiracy theories to hide the truth.

When a scandal breaks which cannot itself be hidden from the public – one way to prevent it being taken seriously is to work with “conspiracy theorists” to pump out coincidental information suggesting a conspiracy so bizarre that the (tame) press will treat as if it were a real conspiracy. So, the truth is hidden in plain site (amongst a load of added ridiculous information). But by linking it with the overlay of ridiculous information, when sensible people reject the ridiculous – they tend also to dismiss the original and very likely scandal it was hiding.

Thus the most likely scenario I believe, is that politicians were hiring either prostitutes or erotic dancers for a party. I would quite believe that a few friendly media hacks were also in attendance (and they’re as keen as everyone else to shut this up). There’s nothing in the raw evidence to suggest paedophilia. And I would guess that when it was realised that (unlike in the past when this happened), this time the press could not shut it up … the spin doctors decided to go for the nuclear option of “giving the scandal enough extra spice and lies that the scandal is so sensational that the internet will go overboard with it (with their help), thus turning a real scandal into a completely deniable story (which none of the fearty press would dare to touch).

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>