Who Didn't Diddy Diddle?
Why this hate on Diddy now, all of a sudden? If Diddy's bent, that can only mean the whole system of support and propaganda that elevated him to fame in the first place is also bent.
That is, these things don't go on in a vacuum, yet that's how the public perception seems to receive them. If there's one Jeffery Epstein, it doesn't mean there's one problem or issue, it really means that there is a whole host of supporters, enablers, hangers-on, participants...
Concerning "show biz," it's consistently repeated that there's a high price to be paid for fame, and this is alluded to or outright stated by numerous celebrities, most notably, Katy Perry, who said she had to, "sell her soul." That's a serious claim. But the ignorant masses laugh it off.
Michael Jackson was scorned for years, when there is a report that all the Jackson 5 (the 1964-89+! musical group consisting of the Jackson brothers Michael, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, and Marlon) had to line up, prior to their performances, in a row, to be buggered by a "huge black man," back in the day. It's insensitive, and callous, to ignore the innumerable reports of rampant child molestation in Hollyweird, and many lack the integrity or curiosity to make a simple inquiry. Like, if the allegations were true, what made Mike that way? And what were they trying to cover up when they went all-out with their attacks on Michael, when, again, there are countless perps of perversion in the industry?
This "singling out" seems to be a very effective tactic in concealing the more extensive corruption, so you get doled out a sequence of individuals they can sensationalize and toss out there to take the heat. Michael Jackson gets attention, then the focus moves to Jimmy Savile, then it swings to Jeff Epstein. And now, since there always has to be some target in the news, it's "Diddy Bad!"
George Carlin — and this has been repeated to the point of being nauseating — even told us, "It's a big club and you ain't in it!" and it never penetrates the peckerwood sentiment that we don't ever know what the hell is really going on, but we do know all these criminal doings are interconnected. There was a lively debate over whether Trump had visited "Epstein Island," with no care or contemplation that it's moot. They're all shady in their associations. We must assume that no politician is trustworthy. No "celebrity," no one famous.
The wider public doesn't understand that it's all corrupt, but people just lose their minds over specifics. Instead, ask, "What did Diddy do?" That is, how did Sean "Diddy" Combs displease his masters to have them send the wall of scorn down on him at this particular moment.
Understand that they must have him under tight wraps, with no way to defend himself, because if they let him speak freely, he could start to name names, and he no doubt knows enough to bring down the system, theoretically. Theoretically, because a corrupt system can just shut him up for good, or claim he lied, and everyone would believe he was lying. Hell, a lot of people already have spoken up, and they're simply ignored or discredited. Lessee... Randy Quaid, Corey Feldman, Suge Knight, Michael Jackson, Brendan Fraser, Brad Pitt, Robert Downey Jr., Courtney Love, Rose McGowan, Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, Salma Hayek, Ashley Judd, Daryl Hannah, Uma Thurman, Elijah Wood, Lin Wood, Will Smith, even Oprah, just to name a few. Nothing ever changes. Still, one rebel could be enough to embarrass the scum, and they'd just as soon not tolerate the inconvenience. We stand with Diddy until his full side of the story is permitted to come out, but don't anticipate that ever happening.
Manipulation keeps the dirty secrets under wraps. It reminds us of the sucker-baiting they pull with the promotion of the movie, Citizen Kane, where people don't have the courage of their convictions, and can be "convinced" or "shown by experts" that the dud is a "great" film. If you can "convince them," it may just be showing their opinions are valueless, no matter what those opinions are, favorable or unfavorable. They're valueless, if the persuasion shows they had no grounds for an opinion in the first place.
Regarding "opinions," they are the basis of another scam that's pulled on us, where they tell us, falsely, that "everyone's opinion is valuable," "everyone is entitled to an opinion," and so on, which presumably is to sell us on the "voting" scam, when voting never seems to change anything for the better. All we vote on is the way they're going to violate our rights, and by whom.
Comments