Balenciaga recent children’s ads have sparked controversy to say the least. However, if we take a deep dive into the possible motivations and intentions behind the advertisements the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than we can imagine. One of the ads features a child holding a teddy bear dressed in bondage. Another ad has a child in a room with random items scattered all around. Certain items just seem odd for a child to have in his room:
1. Teddy bear dressed in bondage.
2. Red shoes that seem to be the face of a devil like figure
3. Drawing a devil like figure
4. Hood of a black cloak
5. Yellow Tape of Balenciaga spelled with 2 As followed by an L.
The yellow tape with the mis-spelling of Balenciaga might seem random. However, the letter placements appear to be spelling “BAAL”. Baal is an ancient god that used to accept child sacrifices. The red devil like shoes, the devil like picture, and black cloaked hood all seem to imply devil worship. To appeal to modern woke ideology the brand is embracing the far-left agenda of the rejection religion and religious values. The hints at devil worship are intended to mock the Christian religion by embracing the antithesis. Although the goal isn’t necessarily to embrace evil morals and values, they seem to rejecting moral and values grounded in the most prominent religion in the west, Christianity. The teddy bear dressed in bondage gives the impression that they are trying to subtly normalize the sexualization of children. It is not normal attire for children to be exposed too. There is a strong push in some areas for pedophiles to be re-branded as minor attracted persons, they are trying to make their condition tolerable to society by slowly wearing away at the social stigma, it starts with something as simple as language. On the other end, society is leaning towards minors being able to decide their gender. If we follow this logically; if a child is legally deemed mature enough and allowed to change his/her gender, the argument for them being unable to consent to a relationship with an adult, because of their age, doesn’t seem as strong anymore. The end goal here being to do-away with age of consent laws. If age of consent laws are relaxed or even thrown all together people like Jeffrey Epstein are no longer vilified, and the legal repercussions are little if any. Remember, Epstein was rubbing elbows with many global elites, and the circumstances regarding his death are very suspicious to say the least. How many other powerful people was Epstein connected to that we don’t know about? The people that we do know about span the realms of corporate billionaires, politicians, and royalty. Could these global elites be using their influence to push this agenda, so that once the truth comes out; not only are they exempt from legal consequences but they’re not even seen to have done anything wrong?
Possible Epstein Connection
A world-renowned luxury brand like Balenciaga launching such a controversial campaign raises some questions. Could this be global elites pushing an agenda of normalizing the sexualization of children? Is there a connection between Balenciaga and notorious global elite/convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein? Let us explore the possibility of a connection.
Firstly, there is Rachel Chandler. Born in 1988, heiress to the Chandler family, worth approximately $4.32 Billion, formerly owned the LA Times. She owns a modelling agency and recruited models for a Balenciaga runway show in 2016. She was photographed with former President Bill Clinton, who has been verified on the flight log to have been on Epstein’s private plane and island multiple times.
The photo was allegedly taken on Epstein’s private on plane on-route to his island. The background of the photo does seem to be a private plane however it doesn’t necessarily mean that it was Epstein’s plane. Being part of such a wealthy family it isn’t unbelievable she could’ve met Bill Clinton without Epstein being involved. However, in 2013, Chandler had several Instagram posts indicated she was on Epstein’s island.
Another notable connection to be considered is as follows. Balenciaga is owned by parent company Kering, the CEO of which is Francois Henri Pinault, also Salma Hayek’s husband. Artemis Group is an investment company owned by the Pinault family, it was founded by Francois Pinault (father of Francois Henri Pinault). Under the Artemis Group’s umbrella of companies is Christie’s, a company that facilitates sales of premium art collections. Epstein was known to be an art collector, and apparently used Christie’s to purchase several pieces of art. The Superior Court of Virgin Islands requested Christie’s to release all documents they had on file pertaining to Epstein, including sales, bids, inquires, and communications.
Could Rachel Handler have connections to Epstein through her family? She owns a modelling agency. Could she have been recruiting underaged girls for Epstein at some point? Epstein frequently used underaged girls to recruit other underaged girls. To what extent is the Pinault family involved with Epstein? If Epstein isn’t the only global elite involved with trafficking, could other, wealthier, more powerful individuals entangled be trying to subtly appeal to the subconscious of mass society to somehow accept the sexualization of minors? It would make sense to start with something subtle such as an outfit on a teddy bear in an ad containing a child.
1. Teddy bear dressed in bondage.
2. Red shoes that seem to be the face of a devil like figure
3. Drawing a devil like figure
4. Hood of a black cloak
5. Yellow Tape of Balenciaga spelled with 2 As followed by an L.
The yellow tape with the mis-spelling of Balenciaga might seem random. However, the letter placements appear to be spelling “BAAL”. Baal is an ancient god that used to accept child sacrifices. The red devil like shoes, the devil like picture, and black cloaked hood all seem to imply devil worship. To appeal to modern woke ideology the brand is embracing the far-left agenda of the rejection religion and religious values. The hints at devil worship are intended to mock the Christian religion by embracing the antithesis. Although the goal isn’t necessarily to embrace evil morals and values, they seem to rejecting moral and values grounded in the most prominent religion in the west, Christianity. The teddy bear dressed in bondage gives the impression that they are trying to subtly normalize the sexualization of children. It is not normal attire for children to be exposed too. There is a strong push in some areas for pedophiles to be re-branded as minor attracted persons, they are trying to make their condition tolerable to society by slowly wearing away at the social stigma, it starts with something as simple as language. On the other end, society is leaning towards minors being able to decide their gender. If we follow this logically; if a child is legally deemed mature enough and allowed to change his/her gender, the argument for them being unable to consent to a relationship with an adult, because of their age, doesn’t seem as strong anymore. The end goal here being to do-away with age of consent laws. If age of consent laws are relaxed or even thrown all together people like Jeffrey Epstein are no longer vilified, and the legal repercussions are little if any. Remember, Epstein was rubbing elbows with many global elites, and the circumstances regarding his death are very suspicious to say the least. How many other powerful people was Epstein connected to that we don’t know about? The people that we do know about span the realms of corporate billionaires, politicians, and royalty. Could these global elites be using their influence to push this agenda, so that once the truth comes out; not only are they exempt from legal consequences but they’re not even seen to have done anything wrong?
Possible Epstein Connection
A world-renowned luxury brand like Balenciaga launching such a controversial campaign raises some questions. Could this be global elites pushing an agenda of normalizing the sexualization of children? Is there a connection between Balenciaga and notorious global elite/convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein? Let us explore the possibility of a connection.
Firstly, there is Rachel Chandler. Born in 1988, heiress to the Chandler family, worth approximately $4.32 Billion, formerly owned the LA Times. She owns a modelling agency and recruited models for a Balenciaga runway show in 2016. She was photographed with former President Bill Clinton, who has been verified on the flight log to have been on Epstein’s private plane and island multiple times.
The photo was allegedly taken on Epstein’s private on plane on-route to his island. The background of the photo does seem to be a private plane however it doesn’t necessarily mean that it was Epstein’s plane. Being part of such a wealthy family it isn’t unbelievable she could’ve met Bill Clinton without Epstein being involved. However, in 2013, Chandler had several Instagram posts indicated she was on Epstein’s island.
Another notable connection to be considered is as follows. Balenciaga is owned by parent company Kering, the CEO of which is Francois Henri Pinault, also Salma Hayek’s husband. Artemis Group is an investment company owned by the Pinault family, it was founded by Francois Pinault (father of Francois Henri Pinault). Under the Artemis Group’s umbrella of companies is Christie’s, a company that facilitates sales of premium art collections. Epstein was known to be an art collector, and apparently used Christie’s to purchase several pieces of art. The Superior Court of Virgin Islands requested Christie’s to release all documents they had on file pertaining to Epstein, including sales, bids, inquires, and communications.
Could Rachel Handler have connections to Epstein through her family? She owns a modelling agency. Could she have been recruiting underaged girls for Epstein at some point? Epstein frequently used underaged girls to recruit other underaged girls. To what extent is the Pinault family involved with Epstein? If Epstein isn’t the only global elite involved with trafficking, could other, wealthier, more powerful individuals entangled be trying to subtly appeal to the subconscious of mass society to somehow accept the sexualization of minors? It would make sense to start with something subtle such as an outfit on a teddy bear in an ad containing a child.
