I wouldn’t have voted for Roy Moore, we are too far apart on the issues. But that’s what should determine elections – issues and vision of the future, not character assassination. We all deserve fair play whether in the political arena, courts or life. Without judging the allegations (though I’ve never, ever, witnessed a tearless fake crier who turned out to be truthful. Tearless fake crying is a psychopathic pity play specialty, they think we are too stupid to notice), I’d like to focus on the psychopathic gang stalking strategies used against him. Even if it turns out he is guilty of the allegations, which we have no proof of, the media approach was very improper.
The attack was essentially through a very sly and improper use of English plus a kind of word inflation. “Accused pedophile”, “accused molester” were terms that were used across the media (in seemingly organized fashion, but then our fake news industry is really a social engineering industry). There is no such thing as either of those terms. ‘Accused pedophile?’ — ‘what’s the pedophile accused of?’ — the phrase assumes the actuality of the subject being a pedophile. This is a purposeful psychopath-think strategy to ‘slide’ the pedophile accusation into the realm of reality. The proper term of course is ‘alleged pedophile.’ However in this instance Roy Moore was never accused of pedophilia. He was accused of sexual activity with a post puberty minor. Pedophilia is the sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. He was never accused of that. If the then fourteen year old’s assertions are true, the crime would have been lewd behavior with a minor — not even statutory rape (which is consenting sex with a minor before the age of consent) or molestation. But the terms, pedophile, child abuser, molester, perv have been thrown around by the so-called journalists. Katy Tur and that fake journalist with his own fake news show, Chris Cuomo, come to mind. Roy Moore should collect instances where the term alleged was not added and sue — if not guilty as charged of course. I don’t know if he’s guilty of any of these allegations but I do know the media is guilty of psychopathic gangstalking through the purposeful sly use of language and word meaning inflation plus moral sliminess in the cause of character assassination.
There were many elements involved in the character attack on Moore. It was designed to stampede him out of the race. It started with a piling on of allegations (none of which had ever surfaced before in his controversial and contentious political/judicial career — this doesn’t prove them false, but does raise questions) with no time for a where-does-the-truth-lay investigation. There is no such thing as ‘Oh, the accuser is credible, so we should just believe the accuser.’ We’re not mind readers and no court works like that. In a ‘he said, she said’ law case, both stories are examined and both parties cross examined. If an accuser is credible then you take the accusers accusations seriously and examine them, not take them on faith. That public assertion by so much of the media otherwise is simple nonsense and a symptom of their moral corruption. Then of course, there was the frequently raised question of “what motivation would the accusers have had to lie” and thus that they must be telling the truth. That’s naive and childish at best, and assumed similarity disorder at worst. There are as many motivations to lie as there are types of mental illness, as there are individuals in need of money, as there are individuals who can be blackmailed, etc.
Going back to tearless fake criers, we all recall Juanita Broaddrick. A number of years ago I was going to do a post analyzing a couple of her accusatory (against Bill Clinton) videos but never got around to it. There were moments where in the midst of her fake crying and shaking shoulders she would get still and look out through her outstretched fingers that were ‘hiding her grief’ and seemingly judge the effect of her performance, with cold tearless eyes. I found her totally unbelievable and strongly suspect her of being an actual psychopath and probably that rarest of rare, a pseudologue. There should be no shame, no public prohibition in asking that accusers prove they are not psychopaths, not pathological liars.