Last month I posted a video clip of an interview of Jim Caviezel with Steve Bannon, promoting his new film Sound of Freedom, about the sex trafficking and organ harvesting of children. I'm not really a fan of Bannon, but I thought he gave a very fair and levelheaded interview.
Anyway, I didn't realize at the time that there are some legitimate red flags concerning that film, suggesting it may not be what it seems, that it may actually be a smokescreen to misdirect and to obfuscate the truth, and having some other ulterior motive then to actually stop sex trafficking.
1) It's a very complicated subject, but some of the red flags are that Tim Ballard, the real life agent played by Jim Caviezel in this film, is a Freemason. And why is that important? Well, apparently the Freemasons are promoting some microchip implant tracking system, you know marketed as a way to track your kids, in case they get kidnapped, they'd be able to find them through GPS. And what better way to convince people to get chipped then by watching a movie that will make them fearful of being kidnapped or organ harvested?
What if the intention is not to stop trafficking at all, but really it's for some other reason, such as to push this microchip implant, to increase control and acquiescence to this no escape total surveillance system, because once you get chipped, you're tracked for life. Ever feel like dropping out and going to live in a cabin in the middle of the woods in Alaska, well if you're chipped they'll still be able to find you, because maybe you owe taxes, or maybe you didn't pay for a permit to live where you built this cabin, or to fish, or to raise chickens, or to chop down trees for wood, or to pay your carbon tax on those wood stove emissions, etc. etc.
This movie could be like a covert advertisement for the chip, similar to what I proposed in my "Fake News, Real Commercials", which was mostly about the manipulation of news, but could just as easily apply to other forms of media, such as television, movies, and music. You know the idea that a movie isn't just made simply to entertain or to make money, but maybe it's actually selling some idea, you know pushing an agenda, and not necessarily a naturally occurring one, but something that some think tank of strategists masterminded and then sold to Hollywood to put in their film, not even necessarily as the main story line, but a theme running in the background, you know like maybe subtly promoting transgenderism or something.
2) The second red flag is who is funding the film? Who is funding the film? I'm sure the answer is out there, somewhere, and once you find it, you'll know that something doesn't quite add up. It's suspicious.
3) The third red flag, Jim Caviezel is a Catholic, pictured meeting the pope, bowing down to him, holding his hand, and yet no comments, no outrage from Jim about the extensive pedophilia in the Catholic church, the abuse of orphans at the hands of Catholic and Jesuit missionaries, which is totally connected to trafficking, and is totally being covered up, and is widespread and ongoing. And that's the thing, this movie Sound of Freedom, which I haven't yet seen so I could be missing something, but from what I understand it seems to be focusing only on the trafficking of children from Latin America, it doesn't talk about the fact that it's not just poor indigenous children in third world countries, it's happening right here too, and to overlook the rampant pedophilia of the church, and the exploitation of children in Catholic and Jesuit orphanages and missionaries around the world, seems a bit suspect. I mean okay, the movie is just about this one aspect of it, but the fact that these other things are not brought up in interviews seems like a red flag to me.
4) Anyway, I haven't seen Sound of Freedom yet, because I don't go to movie theaters anymore, but as soon it's available for streaming, I'm definitely going to see it, but am now somewhat suspicious of its motives. Even that Jim Caviezel, I've seen so many interviews of him now, and it's like when I posted this clip, it was the first interview I saw about this film, and I thought it was great, but now I've seen literally dozens of interviews, and it's like he's saying the same thing in everyone, like word for word it's the same, like this guy is an actor, he could easily be reading a script for these interviews, you know it's just a little fake after awhile. And of course there is the adrenochrome angle and the association with QAnon (For more info see: this and this and this one is very disturbing so read at your own risk) which could be a disservice to people taking this film seriously. But of course as a fan of David Icke for over twenty years now, I'm pretty open minded to these things, so personally I find it completely possible that there are malevolent extraterrestrials living among us who feast on trauma induced human blood. Not saying I know it to be true, but I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of it being true either.
Still, regardless of what anybody else says about it, even if there are negative ulterior motives to it, as far as I'm concerned the film still has value, because it raises awareness to the reality of child sex trafficking and organ harvesting, and most importantly it also purports to expose deep levels of government corruption and complicity in crimes against humanity, suggesting that all three letter agencies are in on it, at least on a need to know basis. But the problem is how do you prove that? Because you don't. You can't. Any legitimate investigation gets shot down, and key people always seem to end up dying by car accident or plane crash or suicide or the forever untraceable oldest trick in the book death by heart attack. So, where does it leave us then? You find out about something so evil, so terrible, that's almost impossible to believe, and yet it's real, and it's happening, and your government is allowing it to happen, and they are in on it, and yet, there's nothing you can do about it. So, fuck you, right. They are exposing the truth, but also at the same time they are exposing that you are powerless to stop it.
Well, I found this clip below that sheds some more light on it. It's a totally different perspective, and I'm not sure if I agree with everything this guy says, but it's interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment