Friday, November 15, 2019

PURE HORROR #Pedogate: Transcript of Anne Marie van Blijenburgh’s testimony about child murders in Belgium

from ITCCS:

My name is Anne Marie van Blijenburgh. I have been married for twenty four years to Kees van Korlaar. Together with his three brothers, Kees van Korlaar forms a criminal organization known as the Octopus Syndicate (ed. Note: This is a slang term in Holland for Ndrangheta, the modern Italian -based Mafia). They have worked from 1960 on to today. By order of Queen Beatrix they have organized the murder, torture, rape and killing of children in a public setting. They organized that through youth detention centers in the Netherlands.

 The youth detention centers were told by the criminals that they were asking for the Dutch court for children who could work for the Dutch Queen for a certain period. The detention centers were very happy, they thought that Queen Beatrix was a very social person, and they gladly volunteered in giving files of certain children to the criminals. When they wanted to verify what the criminals told them, they were given a name and a phone number of a high ranking officer in the court of Queen Beatrix, and that high ranking officer would tell them that indeed the criminals were seeking children to work for a certain period at the Dutch court.

 After receiving files of approximately three children every time, the criminals selected a child that had no relative or family. They told the youth detention center that those are the ones we want, the youth detention center would give clothes to the child and put the child on the train to Zwolle. In Zwolle, the criminals fetched the child from the station and brought it to a building that was equipped like a hotel but was not working as a hotel, although there were people in the lobby as if the hotel was working. The child was put on a table and was given something to drink and with that drink the child was drugged. Beside that hotel was a building where the performance took place.

In that building there were people were sitting down and at a certain moment the child was brought into that building by the criminals, was tortured, raped and brutally murdered in front of those people.

The audience was around Prince Johann Friso, the second son of Queen Beatrix. I was told that Johann Friso was quite insane and had an unhealthy interest in young children and had a psychiatrist with him every day of his life. That psychiatrist’s name was Guus Pareau Dumont. The criminals organized those killings in accordance with Queen Beatrix, she paid for the killings. And the criminals asked Johann Friso to bring his relatives and friends with him, so the whole building was filled with very important people from the Netherlands: ministers, high ranking officers and all kinds of people that the criminals could photograph so they could blackmail those people and get criminal advantages from that.

 Question: Could you name some of the people who were present?

 The people who I recognized there were Prince Johann Friso, his psychiatrist Guus Pareau Dumont , I recognized Johann’s wife Mabel Wisse Smit, she was there with an old man, I think it was George Soros, I recognized a Herr Donner, a former minister of the law department, the vice roy of the Netherlands, I recognized Ernst Hirsch Ballin, a very important former Minister of Justice, I recognized a Mr. van den Emster, he was for years the head of all judges in the Netherlands, I recognized Dick Berlijn, he’s a former head of the military department in the Netherlands. I recognized a very important journalist. I recognized Carla Eradus, the wife of Friso’s psychiatrist Guus Pareau Dumont, Carla is the President of the Court in Amsterdam, a judge. I recognized Mark Rutte, he’s at this moment the President of the Netherlands. I recognized Geert Wilders, he is at this moment the head of the political party PVV and head of the Dutch Parliament.

 There were about fifty people every time I was taken there. I have been taken there three times. I have seen every time that they killed a child, I have seen two boys killed and one girl killed. I presume they were children from the Netherlands, I presume they came from detention centers and were recruited in the way I have told.

Question: You said that officials at the detention center thought that the children had been eaten?

I asked a journalist of the paper De Telegraff in 2005 or 2006 to look that up for me and to publish in the newspaper what was happening. The journalist told me he had checked my story with all the youth detention centers in the Netherlands and had spoken to people who had indeed given those files to the criminals and they thought that the children they put on the train were going to be solicited to work in the court of Queen Beatrix. And some of those detention center people told the journalist that they thought that Queen Beatrix was eating those children up because they were putting them on the train to Zwolle and they never saw those children again or ever heard about them anymore.

 Question: Do you know what happened to the remains of the children who died, where they were buried or what they did with them?

 Yes unfortunately I know, yes. They were first thrown in a container behind the building where they were murdered, a cooling container. After certain performances the container was brought to Belgium where they had a piece of land where they put the children in a hole.

 Question: What is the name of the place in Belgium, do you know?

 I must look it up, I found it but I must look it up.

Question: What is it that you’d like to see happen about all of this?

 I want to see those criminals forever locked up.

Question: You haven’t received any help in the Netherlands, you said.

Not one thing, no, it’s terrible, from 2004 to today. I have spoken with every policeman I could find, and every law official, I’ve talked to INTERPOL about this, I’ve been to court to try to get a the prosecutor to convict this and investigate the matter. The court told me it wasn’t my problem, it was a problem of society, and the court didn’t want to give an order to the prosecutor to investigate. I have done literally everything to clear this up. I have the idea that everything is stopped because Queen Beatrix is involved and the Dutch court is involved. And every time somebody wants to investigate they slap him on the shoulders and say don’t do that because Queen Beatrix doesn’t want it.

Question: Are you willing to give this testimony in another court, say a Common Law Court?

Yes. I have no objection about that. I am very very angry, if you’ve seen what I’ve seen, it always stay with me. I can’t put it aside because it’s one of the cruelest things I have seen, it’s horrible, it’s really horrible. The idiots. One time when I was going back to my home, my husband who took me there, he drugged and he let me see that and he brought me back to my home a hundred kilometers away. And during that ride I suddenly came to my senses, I suddenly discovered that it was a child that I had seen killed. I burst out into tears. My husband was driving and he put his arm to me and he said, “Don’t bother, they’re children of a minor family, they’re orphans, they’re just trash, it doesn’t matter they were killed.” It’s horrible. I can’t describe it. It’s horrible those people were sitting there and looking and not doing anything.

Read More @ ITCCS.org

Illuminati Symbolic Pics of the Month 11/17

from Vigilant Citizen:

In this edition of SPOTM: Kevin Spacey, Milo Yiannopoulos, Bryan Cranston and the symbolism around the Vegas shooting. And more.

In the past years, several mega-franchises released “character posters” and, unsurprisingly, they’re replete with the one-eye sign. Here are the posters of Star Trek Discovery. Can they be more blatant? Not really.

This poster features the famous Vulcan Salute hand sign, complete with a single eye strategically placed between the fingers.

The Vulcan Salute hand sign is symbolic in itself as it is based on the Priestly Blessing performed by Jewish Kohanim. The sign represents the Hebrew letter Shin (ש), which has three upward strokes similar to the position of the thumb and fingers in the salute. The letter Shin here stands for El Shaddai, meaning “Almighty (God)”, as well as for Shekinah and Shalom. Therefore, placing an all-seeing eye into that symbol gives this movie poster a profound esoteric meaning that most will completely overlook.

Here’s another Star Trek poster. More one-eye focus.

In case you believe that this is all a coincidence, here are 8 more posters from the same series

In case you still believe this is all a coincidence, here are 3 posters promoting Star Wars The Force Awakens.

Do you see a pattern here?

While we’re looking at movie posters, here’s the official poster of the movie All I See if You.

Read More @ VigilantCitizen.com

THE SHINING DECIDED: “MAZES, MIRRORS, DECEPTION AND DENIAL”

DANNY’S ORDEAL

from Collective Learning:

The following video is based upon chapters 16 & 17 of this analysis, though both the video and article equivalents contain their own pieces of unique information. The text version is slightly more in-depth as well.

One of the most frequent questions I’ve received about The Shining is “What does the guy in the bear costume mean?” The popular interpretation is that the scene is a throwback to a subplot of Stephen King’s book, in which a party guest in a dog costume has a homosexual relationship with one of the hotel’s former owners. For a detailed description of this subplot follow this link. The first thing to note is that in the film the guy is dressed in a bear costume instead of a dog costume.

A shift from dog to bear costume doesn’t have any significant effect on the aesthetic scariness of the scene so there must have been some sort of logic at work in Kubrick’s decision. The second obvious factor is that Kubrick has omitted the entire back story associated to the dog costumed man in the book, leaving his audience at a complete loss as to the scene’s meaning.

In researching the film I have found three thematic interpretations of the bear man scene and I believe Kubrick intended all three of these metaphors as part of the subliminal narrative. This chapter will cover the first of those themes.

There are actually several other references in the film to bears. The easiest one to notice is in the scene of Danny talking to the psychiatrist. In the close up of Danny we see that his pillow has a teddy bear face on it. Look carefully at this teddy pillow. Its eyes are similar in design to the floor dials of the gaping mouth elevator, which we’ve already identified as symbolic eyes, and the teddy’s mouth is bright red, which again is similar to the gaping mouth doors of the elevator.

Another connection is that both of these bear motifs are featured in relation to beds or bedrooms.

Now I won’t beat around the bush by building up to my interpretation of this theme. Some readers will probably disapprove or take offence at what I’m about to say regardless of how I explain it, so I’ll just say it outright. Danny has been sexually abused by Jack. Here is a piece of evidence which on its own acts as virtual confirmation of this theme. When Ullman and Bill Watson approach Jack in the lobby on Closing Day, Jack is reading a January 1978 issue of Playgirl Magazine.

First of all there’s the obvious homosexual innuendo, but the story titles featured on this particular issue include the following:

INTERVIEW: THE SELLING OF (STARSKY & HUTCH’S) DAVID SOUL

INCEST: Why parents sleep with their children.

HOW TO AVOID A DEAD END AFFAIR.

Of course the caption relating to incest is the one that’s relevant to this chapter, while the Starsky & Hutch caption may be a reference to Jack giving his soul for a drink and the affair caption could be related to Jack’s encounter with the woman in room 237. Notice how Ullman even points his finger at the magazine as if informing us of its significance.

Returning to the comparisons between the bear costumed man scene and Danny talking to the psychiatrist, sexuality is subtly referenced in both scenes. The bear man appears to be giving felatio to the man on the bed, just as the dog man in the book was carrying out a sexual submission role with his partner. The open patch on the bear man’s behind in the film simply adds to the sexual emphasis.

Read More @ CollectiveLearning.com

Illuminati Symbolic Pics of the Month 09/17

0

from Vigilant Citizen:

In this edition of SPOTM: Gwen Stephani, Miley Cyrus, Harrison Ford, and more proof that one-eye symbolism is a requirement to remain in the good graces of the entertainment industry.

David Lachappelle, one of the elite’s favorite photographers, released a new art book. Miley Cyrus, one of the elite’s favorite slaves, is used to promote that book. As it is often the case with Lachapelle pics using industry slaves, the result is extremely symbolic. Here, Miley poses completely naked inside a desolate jail cell, reaching out for the sun.

In the next picture, Miley is transformed into a colorful butterfly and a bunch of flowers grew around her. This is 100{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} about Monarch programming. In the twisted symbolism of mind control, slaves who have been successfully programmed are depicted with butterfly wings – the insect that begins as a caterpillar to transform into a beautiful butterfly. In both pictures, Miley is naked (representing that the fact that she’s defenseless and possibly a Beta slave). Also, in both pics, she’s still inside her cell (representing the fact that the butterfly thing is all inside her head). That David Lachapelle book should be very symbolic.

As usual, the one-eye sign popped up everywhere in mainstream media in the past month. It can be seen on the cover of magazines, on the cover of music albums, on movie posters, and even on non-relevant ads. We are constantly reminded of who owns this entire industry, yet very few people actually see it.

Ryan Gosling stars in the upcoming movie Bladerunner 2049. Wired Magazine published an article promoting that movie and this is the main picture of the article. One-Eye. In your face. Tell a friend. Also, that robot head above Ryan has something going on in the right eye as well.

Harrison Ford is the other star of Bladerunner 2049. He was featured in the cover story of GQ magazine to promote that movie as well. Once again, the one-eye sign. In your face. Tell a friend.

To make 100{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} sure that you understand that there is nothing “random” about this one-eye thing, here’s another one. There is something sad about these old guys forced to do these ridiculous signs to stay relevant. 

Read More @ VigilantCitizen.com

The New Movie ‘IT’ OMITTED CHILD ORGY SCENE THAT’S IN STEVEN KING’S DEPRAVED BOOK!

from The Vulture:

Since its publication in September of 1986, It has enjoyed a long shelf life, first as a book that spent 14 weeks at the top of the New York Times best-seller list and then worming into nightmares as a TV mini-series in 1990 starring Tim Curry as the titular demonic clown/embodiment of children’s deepest fears. The monster, which a group of kids simply name “It,” manifests as something different for each person based on their specific fears — burning houses, lepers, a dead sibling — and, perhaps because of this, the story has maintained a compelling hold on our collective psyches for more than 30 years. This week, It hits theaters for the first time as a feature film, with a script that was originally set to be directed by Cary Fukunaga, before New Line decided to pivot to Andy Muschietti. (Fukunaga retains a writing credit on a reworked script).

But one controversial scene from King’s novel has dogged the book and subsequent adaptations. After defeating It, the kids get lost in the sewer tunnels on the way out; this is attributed in part to the fact that they’re losing their “connection” to one another. The solution is to bind them together, which Beverly — the only girl in the story’s main group of protagonists, called “the Losers” — says can only happen if each of the boys has sex with her. Where they’re timid and unsure, she’s confident and maternal. (King writes the first boy Eddie comes to her “the way he would have come to his mother.”) The sex is a “consensual” gang bang, with each of the boys losing his virginity, and thus entering manhood, through Beverly.

 

The ’80s was a bonkers time, but the orgy scene in particular has aged poorly; critics and readers looking back at it have called it everything from “disturbing” to “sick” to “insane.” A Reddit reader from last year simply asked, “WTF?” and generated over 500 comments. For almost ten exhaustive pages, King describes each of the boys having sex with Beverly and their orgasms as a version of “flying.” (You also get the sense that King is a bit of a size queen.) Beverly’s desires are positioned as a way for her to overcome her own fears around sex, but mostly the narrative centers on how the boys literally enter adulthood through Beverly’s vagina. Kingreleased a statement a few years ago through his fan site Stephenking.com, where he wrote, “I wasn’t really thinking of the sexual aspect of it… Intuitively, the Losers knew they had to be together again. The sexual act connected childhood and adulthood.” Perhaps most horrifying to modern sensibilities is that there is no talk of birth control, condoms, or a realization that a circle jerk would have sufficed.

When the new adaptation was announced, many wondered whether it would feature the scene, or some version of it (though the 1990 version eschewed it entirely). As fans often like to say: It’s canon. So does the new version feature a bunch of kids engaging in an orgy? The tl;dr version: No. But while it evades the obvious graphic horror and legal problems of minors simulating group sex, the new film retains a lot of the original scene’s problems — namely, its regressive gender politics and sexualization of its adolescent-girl lead.

The 2017 film flattens and reduces Beverly as a character in retrograde ways. It plays up the love triangle between Beverly (Sophia Lillis), Bill (the protagonist played by Jaeden Lieberher, who loses his little brother Georgie at the start of the film), and the chubby kid, Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), who pines for Bev and writes her a precocious love haiku. The climax of the film — when the Losers reconnect to defeat It after they initially disband — is prompted by It capturing Beverly and taking her to its lair. From there, it’s a classic tale of a damsel in distress: When Bev’s friends come upon her, she’s suspended in midair, like a pendant lamp. The boys eventually get her down, but she’s zoned out, her eyes clouded over. And just as in Sleeping Beauty, Ben kisses her and she awakens. She exists first and foremost as an object of their desire.

It’s an odd decision, in part because this is a more classically sexist narrative than what Fukunaga and Chase Palmer wrote in their original screenplay (which was leaked online after Fukunaga and the studio parted due to “creative differences”). In fact, some of the major differences between the old and new scripts involve Beverly in this way; the new script sexualizes her several times, like when she flirts with a middle-aged cashier at a pharmacy to help the boys steal some supplies. (In the Fukunaga script, the hypochondriac kid Eddie, played by Jack Dylan Grazer, fakes a medical emergency). In Fukunaga and Palmer’s version, Beverly flirts with zero old dudes and needs no saving. She goes with the boys to Pennywise’s lair, launches herself into a waterfall and goes headlong into the fight.

The Fukunaga script does have elements of physical horror that hew more closely to the book. But the focus is different: Beverly’s It manifests as blood — buckets of blood that spew from the sink — and Fukunaga makes it clear that the blood is a metaphor for her own fears around growing up and becoming a “woman,” something she fears would make her more of a sexual object to men, including her father. The new version, on the other hand, removes the physical horror, but leaves in the male gaze: Her father leers at her, calling her his “little girl” and attempting to harm her physically, but there is no blatant indication of sexual abuse. And while the bathroom blood remains, it’s not visually connected to her period or to her fear of her dad, making it seem displaced and random.

RELATED:

 

Read More @ TheVulture.com