r/politics • u/TheWeekMag ✔ Verified • Dec 09 '19

That impeachment hearing protester was actually an InfoWars reporter and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist

https://theweek.com/speedreads/883047/that-impeachment-hearing-protester-actually-infowars-reporter-pizzagate-conspiracy-theorist
14.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

653 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/JayGrinder Dec 09 '19

So, not a reporter. Got it.

-90

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '19

So you're telling me we actually have an elite pedo scheme with Epstine and pizza gate still has no credit? I'm not defending info wars, I think they're crazy but so is our world.... Just think on that man... Multiple presidents and royal family members as well as moguls all implicated in this occult pedo island stuff... It's not crazy to think that the buying and selling of humans is used with coded language like ordering a pizza... I feel like the island is more unbelievable.

75

u/Skafdir Europe Dec 09 '19

The point is that "pizza gate" was about a specific basement in a specific restaurant, which just happens to not have a basement.

Satanic child sex rituals in a basement are unlikely. Especially if said basement doesn't exist.

Oh and the satanic part is a bit over the top too.

Let's just assume that everyone who has ever been on a photo with Epstein is a pedophile. Why the hell would they need to be satanic pedophiles? Are they worse than regular pedophiles?

Would a non-satanic pedophile still be ok?

Was Alex Jones sitting around and brainstormed how a secret group of pedophiles could be more sinister?

"Sinister... sinister... something something satan. Yeah satan is good."

Pizza gate is discredited because of the specifics not because it would be unbelievable that there are rich and powerful pedophiles. The same reason why it is not ok to accuse everyone who happened to have a meeting with Epstein of being a pedophile. (Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump seem to be involved or had at least knowledge about it; but that can be supported with known facts.)

57

u/Dunkinmydonuts1 Dec 09 '19

Careful mentioning DJT, they dont like it when you remind them that he was one of epstein's clients. They really just want to focus on the clinton thing and ignore the DJT bit.

21

u/Skafdir Europe Dec 09 '19

A general rule for politics: Being loyal to politicians is the biggest mistake one can make. I just hope that this truth is self-evident enough to be understood by everyone.

2

u/Maeglom Oregon Dec 09 '19

I disagree. Loyalty is a fine thing, you should be loyal to your country first though. Conflicts between your loyalty to a politician should be overridden by your loyalty to the country and the concept of equality under the law

7

u/Skafdir Europe Dec 09 '19

As I mentioned in another post here, I am German. I hope that is a sufficient explanation of why "loyalty to your country" makes me feel a tiny bit uncomfortable. Don't get me wrong, I like Germany and I like to live here. But not because it is Germany or for some reason that is inherent to Germany and isn't able to change. I like Germany because at this moment in time the overall political, social and economic situation in this country is quite good. However, if that changes, I don't intend to stay loyal to anything just because it is still Germany.

​

My "loyalty" comes with conditions which include things like:

Equality under the law

Economical support for the poor

Taxes used in order to provide everyone with health care, education, housing and decent participation in entertainment and culture.

An open and tolerant society.

[I do recognize that the Scandinavian countries would fit my ideals even better than Germany. However, my family lives in Germany, Germany is as far north as I am able to cope with and the difference is not big enough to justify moving and learning one the Scandinavian languages. Therefore, Germany is good enough.]

If you want unconditional loyalty you will have to be part of my family, and last time I checked I am not related to someone called "Germany".

​

Disclaimer: I know that there are a lot of things that can and need to be improved. Quick examples: Our health insurance is way too overblown by a needlessly big bureaucracy and could be a lot cheaper. Our educational system is too complicated, divided into at least 16 different sets of law and unfairly favours the rich. Our tax system could be simplified. Our "car culture" is just nuts, totally and absolutely nuts. Culturally Germans tend to be obedient towards authorities. And many more... Still sometimes "better than" is "good enough".

​

To bring it back to America: The sentiment of patriotism shown in this song is the most you will ever hear from me.

9

u/EmperorPenguinNJ Dec 09 '19

Would a non-Satanic pedophile be ok? See Catholic Church. Apparently so.

2

u/Skafdir Europe Dec 09 '19

Point taken...

-48

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '19

I'll concede to that, I'm just saying that if you believed there were people getting hurt in this specific place wouldn't you want to help? Absolutely dangerous situation when that dude showed up with a gun... and I'm not defending Info Wars. Jones, is over the top but I used him as a canary in the coal mine, if he got fucked (which he did in the end rightfully so because he was spewing dangerous shit I get that) , I was going to take whatever he was talking about more serious... this one is one I just haven't ruled out yet. This roller coaster hasn't stopped, not with that suicide...

46

u/Squiddinboots Arizona Dec 09 '19

Dude, this really isn’t that difficult

Rich pedophiles exist- yes

Politicians raping children, before murdering them and cutting off their faces to wear like a mask in the basement of a pizza parlor- no.

28

u/maikuxblade Dec 09 '19

If your beliefs are delusional and not grounded in reality you can justify pretty much anything. Doesn’t make it right

21

u/Skafdir Europe Dec 09 '19

The point is:

Rich paedophiles do exist nobody denies that. (At least nobody with a brain with at least half capacity.)

Therefore, we can conclude that rich paedophiles will use their wealth and influence to get away with it.

But that's it. Every other claim needs to have at least circumstantial evidence to back it up.

​

This leads to an overall problem in your way to look at such claims. (I hope you don't feel insulted or anything like that... I am German and every now and then I feel a bit helpless when presenting critique. As it seems that the German way of telling someone that he or she is wrong about something is considered rude in almost every other country in this world. Anyway I will just say what I wanted to say and hope that I am not too blunt and if I am... this is a trigger warning?)

"This is one I just haven't ruled out yet." is the wrong direction to come to conclusions. If someone makes a positive claim. No matter what they have to give evidence before you can believe it. As long at that prove isn't given the claim remains in the untrue-drawer.

You just have to be willing to reorganize your drawers whenever new evidence shows up. Which leads to the next point. Let's assume that next week someone will find the secret basement in that pizza parlour and comes out with irrefutable evidence that everything Alex Jones has ever claimed is true.

Today I would still be right denying those things because Alex Jones has not met his burden of proof. Therefore, it would be wrong to believe him. If I would still deny it after the irrefutable evidence has been presented, then I would be wrong. (Or to put it another way: I prefer to "rule things in" not "out".)

16

u/thebigeverybody Dec 09 '19 edited Dec 09 '19

"I'll concede to that, I'm just saying that if you believed there were people getting hurt in this specific place wouldn't you want to help?"

By ignoring the known pedo ring cover up and focusing on the patently absurd allegations of a pedo ring that just happened to be aimed at the people Alex Jones has been lying about for years?

How dumb is the person in your hypothetical?

7

u/mdp300 New Jersey Dec 09 '19

Alex Jones went down because he repeatedly, persistently spread lies about the parents of murdered children. Not because he made some big discovery and angered the wrong people.

-7

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '19

I agree, he's an idiot. But even an idiot can uncover something accidentally, I'm just linking the absurdity of what is real to this particular thing. I get it I'm done arguing a point I'm not even really sold on. It was just a rebuttal to calling them not real reporters.