Note: The post is mistaken on one account: Allison Mack and Keith Raniere were not charged with "child sex trafficking" even though that's something that would get people's juices flowing. They were charged with regular (adult) sex trafficking, with Raniere also charged with "Sexual exploitation of a child" - he had a sexual relationship with an underage (15) girl.
Details matter.
PS. I'd be real happy to see some actual factual data here. Sure, Branson fits the model but data is important, facts are important, and just assuming "Yes, he's satanic and guilty AF" because of a few points is really shoddy analysis.
Make the assertions, or suppositions, but then research and find facts, instead of jumping to conclusions.
a) Necker Island can be rented. It was rented by NXIVM in 2007 and 2010, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Branson either organized or hosted the events (seminars, parties).
https://nypost.com/2018/04/23/sex-cult-partied-on-richard-bransons-private-island/
b) Sure, the Virgin logo looks like it could be a visual representation of being 'written with blood'. But in and of itself, its not evidence. Suspicious? Sure.
But in the case of Epstein, there has always been plenty of evidence pointing to his actual nature, but is this the case with Branson? (Rhetorical question. "No.") Also, Epstein is mentioned dozens of times in the Q drops, Branson not even once.
Real data and real digs are required. Let's not become lazy frogs, shall we?
Note: The post is mistaken on one account: Allison Mack and Keith Raniere were not charged with "child sex trafficking" even though that's something that would get people's juices flowing. They were charged with regular (adult) sex trafficking, with Raniere also charged with "Sexual exploitation of a child" - he had a sexual relationship with an underage (15) girl.
Details matter.
PS. I'd be real happy to see some actual factual data here. Sure, Branson fits the model but data is important, facts are important, and just assuming "Yes, he's satanic and guilty AF" because of a few points is really shoddy analysis.
Make the assertions, or suppositions, but then research and find facts, instead of jumping to conclusions.
a) Necker Island can be rented. It was rented by NXIVM in 2007 and 2010, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Branson either organized nor hosted the events (seminars, parties).
https://nypost.com/2018/04/23/sex-cult-partied-on-richard-bransons-private-island/
b) Sure, the Virgin logo looks like it could be a visual representation of being 'written with blood'. But in and of itself, its not evidence. Suspicious? Sure.
But in the case of Epstein, there has always been plenty of evidence pointing to his actual nature, but is this the case with Branson? (Rhetorical question. "No.") Also, Epstein is mentioned dozens of times in the Q drops, Branson not even once.
Real data and real digs are required. Let's not become lazy frogs, shall we?
Note: The post is mistaken on one account: Allison Mack and Keith Raniere were not charged with "child sex trafficking" even though that's something that would get people's juices flowing. They were charged with regular (adult) sex trafficking, with Raniere also charged with "Sexual exploitation of a child" - he had a sexual relationship with an underage (15) girl.
Details matter.
PS. I'd be real happy to see some actual factual data here. Sure, Branson fits the model but data is important, facts are important, and just assuming "Yes, he's satanic and guilty AF" because of a few points is really shoddy analysis.
Note: The post is mistaken on one account: Allison Mack and Keith Raniere were not charged with "child sex trafficking" even though that's something that would get people's juices flowing. They were charged with regular (adult) sex trafficking, with Raniere also charged with "Sexual exploitation of a child" - he had a sexual relationship with an underage (15) girl.
Details matter.