Pizzagate featured in new DHS Video

The DHS made a shocking reference to Pizzagate in a new pedo sex-trafficking video released by the agency on Feb.3
Video: youtube.com/watch?v=PNkl4B7rvHY
-------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean they're with us?

Other urls found in this thread:

rebrn.com/re/tony-and-heather-podesta-have-hosted-art-parties-in-washington-f-2941546/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The signs are everywhere

wtf I like the DHS now

get in here lads

sheit

well memed

Its clearly a massage. Someone in there wants us to know they are not blind.

nice ''art'' near ninos pizza

Is that boy drowning because his people are notoriously bad at swimming?

almost kek'd but this is too serious

this reminds of podesta style art

BUMP

...

I like this. Post more?

MY NAME IS NIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNOOOOO

is that you john?

No my name is Dan

how does one like something like this? this is not art

I dunno i guess i'm fucked up

money laundering and display of belonging to upper classes

Exactly

And new hipsters thinking this is real art, because they have been brainwashed to believe that anything (((creative))) can be called art. OH YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND IT user

fuck these parasites

more ''art''

this one is from kim noble

I agree

>The denial of lower, coarse, vulgar, venal, servile—in a word, natural— enjoyment, which constitutes the sacred sphere of culture, implies an affirmation of the superiority of those who can be satisfied with the sublimated, refined, disinterested, gratuitous, distinguished pleasures forever closed to the profane. That is why art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social differences.
Bourdieu's A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste

a scientific way of saying it, true though

seen this yet?

I find these interesting in terms of creature design desu.
It is a nice incorporation of human features to animalistic features.
Of course, them being featured next to kids is somewhat disturbing.

>It reeks of demonic pedophilia and all the kids are shown calmly accepting it.

>The "artist" has an obsession with "rear ends" and scrotums.

>There is a horned goat with a deformed boy doing head stands on its back.

>There are babies made to look like demons.

>The "art" is by by Patricia Piccinini, mentioned in the article about the Podestas below.

Some analysis of the boy in bed with monster behind him photo - worth reading - by a blogger.
rebrn.com/re/tony-and-heather-podesta-have-hosted-art-parties-in-washington-f-2941546/

My stepdad (cuck lol) libtard primary school principal just tried to red pill me on pizzagate, it's getting mainstream and they're getting scared

>they're with us?

You're kidding, right?

No, I'll check it out.

There is a distinct anti-academia sentiment here and it is worrying. Memes and broad generalizations are fun and do convey ideas, but at some point one needs to dig deeper.
Not all schorlarly publishings are leftist anti-science, although the humanities have suffered for the better of four decades by now.
For more in-depth discussion on the degeneration of science by progressives, check out the Sokal affair and Higher Superstition

>The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".[2]
>The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",[3] was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[4][5] On the day of its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense ... structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics."[2]
>The hoax sparked a debate about the scholarly merit of humanistic commentary about the physical sciences; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

...

The academia has been infiltrated by people with (((liberal))) values and this Sokal affair really doesn't surprise me anymore. I think we have reached a point where you don't know what is real and what is not, in terms of science. Not only science, history as well. Normies wouldn't spend much time reading a scientific article so memes are the best medium of education these days...

Things like globalization are too complex to reduce to a few influential individuals striving for some neohomogenous mass of chocolate brown people.
Institutions and International Organizations such as IMF, World Bank or UN function through mechanisms of their respective bureaucracies. However, once the rules, procedures, norms etc are established, it is nigh impossible to reverse them. Bureaucracies develop their own agendas, and have tremendous power through their image alone.
Institutions' main function is to reduce ambiguity and provide meaning. Ambiguity is to be avoided by rational actors as it clouds judgement and makes it more difficult to make decisions. Institutions reduce ambiguity by creating rules, regulations, conditioning employees or citizens to norms of behaviors and by defining the boundaries of what is legitimate. Within the boundaries of what is legitimate actors try to make the best decision.
These constraints, determining whether something is illegitimate, are one source of IOs power. Their bureaucratic structure give them legitimacy of the rational-legal authority they embody (Barnett, p. 707). Unlike, say, authoritarian leaders, legitimate modern authority is invested in legalities, procedures, and rules and thus rendered impersonal. Because the rules are impersonal, people are willing to submit to this kind of authority instead of, say, protesting. "I am sorry, those are the rules" when a bureaucratic apparatus acts against one's interest renders all protests and efforts to get the institution to back down futile.

Knowledge of organisational theory, bureaucracy and power are instrumental in understanding phenomena like globalization. Just pointing at jew is intellectually lazy

The problem is that academics themselves are some of the most abusive and unenlightened people on the planet. A uniformitarian materialist can never understand the truth, they think in language and are completely brainwashed. They will revert to denial delusion & blame just like project mockingbird demands. They have no agency; the left is what it is because the left is acculturated by these academics. Without agency there is no hope.

The other major source stems from the administrative standardisation mentioned above. Specialized knowledge, the control over information and expertise bring about power because that special knowledge it is not immediately available to other actors. Barnett asserts that "for decades after its founding the WB was a magnet for 'the best and brightest' among 'development experts'. Its staff had and continues to have impressive credentials from the most prestigious universities". This, coupled with the claim to neutrality and apolitical decision-making style enables IOs to wield what is referred to as cognitive authority: Citizens and politicians without any background in economics are very likely to blindly accept whatever a supposedly neutral, technocratic institution recommends, assuming in good faith that the IO has no agenda of its own. This in turn enhances an instution's capacity to influence changes in national policies
A striking example of how classification is immensely powerful and highly influential is exemplified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) role in supporting and protecting refugees since 1950. The ability to classify objects and change the definitions and identities is enormously powerful. Consider the word refugee itself: what specifically is it defined as? The UNHCR has the capacity to dominate the discussion through the authority it wields by renaming and redefining the word itself; since staff members are both experts and supposedly neutral. Especially in light of the European Migrant Crisis starting in 2015 it becomes clear how influential the UNHCR really is: depending on how "refugee" is classified, hundreds of thousands of people seeking refuge are affected, let alone the millions in the respective host countries.

Name some books on those last topics for us please!

I guess you are referring to the linguistic turn, death of the author concepts, post-structuralism? Well, the French philosophy that came to dominate the 80's US academia is basically language games.
If you can get past the academic smoke bombs of Derrida or Lacan, you will see how little substance their actually is. I detest relativism as much as the next guy, but totally dismissing whole fields of science is ignorant. You should have read some of their works to be able to hold your ground in discussions.
Higher Superstition is an amazing resource in that regard, doing God's work in deconstructing the phony attempts of progressives to degenerate the sciences.

That's why people are fighting against globalization. These organizations were created already with hidden agendes and didn't start developing them. Just look at the club of rome for example, predecessor of EU. It's really scary shit. The one world govt meme is quite real

Max Weber: Economy and Society, his magnum opus and a tough read. Just google for bureaucracy + Max Weber

Escobar: Encountering Development
DiMaggio and Powell: The iron cage Revisited
Peng, M., Sun, S., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod.
Broome, A. & Seabrooke, L. (2015). Shaping Policy Curves: Cognitive Autority in Transnational Capacity Building. Public Administration, 93(4), 956-972.

Barnett, M. & Finnemore, M. (1999). The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.

Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization

Jeffrey Pfeffer. Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations

I want you to know that I really appreciate this

guys... wasnt this right after the lapd badges showed up? it was like 4 days ago

do u think this was to draw heat away?

One world government absolutely is real. My point is that its too easy to just go ahead and claim all International Organisations were created by the same people, with a sole purpose and ceaselessly work towards that one goal that is a one world government.
The whole premise that bureaucracies are efficient is faulty. There are conflicts of interest between different IOs, and even between different departments within organizations. The agenda(s) have been developed over time, and not because a few people said so. Because of the mechanisms of bureaucracy, the organizations take on a life of their own, regardless of who is temporarily in charge. That, to me, is even scarier than a few rich fucks sitting in gloomy rooms conspiring against the world

But didn't those agendas arise from older ideas? The organizations can be created by the same people, but it's the idea that is unifying them in the end. The framework on how to operate has been laid out and the different people and bureucracies are discussing things only in the framework that's laid out to them, so it doesn't matter who's in charge at all.

*created by different people

Of course, it is neccesary to have some international organizations, but these days, I can't really see what good they are doing for mankind

I meant that we are aculturated into this position by academic institutions, that culture is the ecology of mind. I think that to defeat mockingbird culture agency must be acculturated into us, instead of uniformitarian materialism.

Have fun user. At times, its difficult reading, and by no means comprehensive. If you see an interesting quote, check the references and go from there. The field of political economy is vast and complex and it takes perseverance and great reading comprehension to work your way through Weber or Luhmann.
Learning about organizational theory redpilled me more than any meme graphics that are being dumped here.