Wednesday, September 2, 2020

How Your Children Are Sexually and Economically Objectified and Trafficked into the Social Security Slavery System

     In 2019, a video began to circulate on the internet, which depicted an African-American woman named Brittany Johnson, who went by the name of Lovely Peaches. She was laughing about having allowed members of a Latino gang of child rapists, to rape her daughter Cora for money. She reasoned that it would help her raise money to take care of the child.
     Those videos are available at the following links, but viewers should be cautioned that the content of the videos is disturbing.

     People who sell their children to sex traffickers are obviously horrible, irredeemable people, who belong in prison.
     But think about what poor and disadvantage people are constantly told in this country: Do whatever it takes to make money. If you don't make enough money to support yourself, and keep yourself housed, you are offered very little respect and autonomy in this country.

     We should hardly be surprised that people would resort to abusing their children for money. Especially given the rash of child abuse which America saw throughout the Bush Jr. and Obama years; in schools, by teachers and principals, and by private security guards and others.
     You can learn more about that rash of child abuse by reading the articles listed at the following link:
     We should not forget that most of the adults who committed the acts of child abuse mentioned in those articles, did so while on the job. So those actions were examples of child abuse which occurred for monetary compensation. Many of those actions were probably legal at the time, as well.

     During the 2010s, some parents even resorted to having their children participate in M.M.A. (Mixed Martial Arts) fights against each other. The fact that it is not an adult beating up the child, does not make this acceptable. This is child abuse, and parents should not lead their impressionable children to believe that it is OK..
     Even if the parents are not making money directly, off of these fights, the prospect of a high-paying career in M.M.A., boxing, or wrestling, is, for some reason, enough to cause some parents to lose sight of right and wrong. Children need to be protected from physical harm, regardless of whether they are being “properly supervised” during the harm. Parents directing anybody – adult or child – to harm their children, are committing acts of child abuse.

     In his 2009 film Bruno, actor-director Sacha Baron Cohen disguised himself and met with a mother who admitted she was willing to make her young child lose an unhealthy amount of weight in order to land an acting role (which did not exist).
     This shows that some parents in America are so desperate for money, and they are willing to put their children in harm's way - and even put their children's health at risk - in order to get it.

     In 2020, given the economic slow-down which was precipitated by the shelter-in-place order due to Coronavirus, that desperation is at an even higher rate than it has been in the recent few years.
Think about it: In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, governments across the country, apparently overnight, decided that one group of workers is “essential”, while another group of workers is “non-essential”.
     As a result, many so-called “non-essential workers” now find themselves out of work. Additionally, many other workers have engaged in strikes this year, because they believe that their bosses are carelessly risking exposing workers to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes Covid-19).
     What does this all mean? 1) We have a fascist government that claims the right to pit one class of workers against another; 2) We have a government that thinks it can tell a large number of people to go home and stop them from working; and 3) We have a government that stands by and does nothing while bosses try to deny workers the right to strike when they reasonably believe that their safety or health is in danger at the workplace.

     There is no moral defense for child abuse and child sexual assault. But when governments can, more or less, tell millions of people to go home and stop showing up to work, and when employment increasingly occurs at the will of the employers, it must be pointed out that people who commit crimes for money are not completely free to make their own decisions.
     I say this not to excuse what child traffickers, and mothers who pimp and prostitute their own children, do. I say this to call attention to the fact that if a person is raised into a life of virtual slavery - by way of forced submission to a tyrannical political system, and slavery to the dollar - the person will eventually see that the way to reap the most economic benefit to themselves, is to sell other people into the same types of slavery, or into other types of slavery.
     Criticize child traffickers, child rapists, and criminals all you want; and I will criticize them, and call for their imprisonment, right along with you. But you should not do so without understanding that poor people are under extreme levels of economic pressure.
     People should, absolutely, be held liable to bear the consequences of harming other people, and take individual responsibility for what they have done. But you cannot argue that the government, and the economic system, have not rigged to pressure poor adults to sell their children into various forms of slavery.
     The recent scandal which revealed politicians from both major political parties to have received donations from Epstein, and to have flown on his plane the “Lolita Express” - and Epstein's ties to Wall Street from the early 1980s to 2007-2008 – show that the system is rigged to promote child labor and child sex slavery.



     Just as people sold their children during the Great Depression of the 1930s, parents are increasingly letting their moral guards down, for the promises of money. They allow their children to work, whether for pay or without, at young ages. They allow their teenagers to drink, reasoning that the law doesn't apply to them in their own house, so that makes it OK to allow a child, whose nervous system is still developing, to imbibe a central nervous system depressant and a deadly neurotoxin.

     Additionally, today's children are being increasingly sexualized by their schools and the entertainment industry. MTV shows like 16 & Pregnant, Teen Moms, and Teen Mom: Young + Pregnant purport to show the negative consequences of getting pregnant at early ages, but by and large the shows glamorize teen pregnancy by showing the same mothers living consequence-free lives, full of partying, later in life.
     This article shows how the tabloids even refer to these women as “stars” of the show:
     Although the show doesn't allow any new mothers to audition – and instead has followed the same group of once-teenage-mothers for over a decade now, into their late twenties – the show still leads any impressionable teens watching, to conclude that they could get pregnant, and get a lot of attention, as long as they do it through a social media platform – like Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, etc.- for which they don't have to audition for anybody.

     The 2007 film Juno, directed by Jason Reitman and written by Diablo Cody, directly led to a rash of teen pregnancies; several teenage girls saw the film and had sex in order to get pregnant, and confessed that the film inspired them. That story was followed by criticism that the film destigmatized, or even encouraged or glamorized, teen pregnancy.
     I personally feel that the film promoted teen pregnancy, by lowering the audience's guard, through using humor. Additionally, the film's use of the music of Kimya Dawson, punctuated it with tinker-toy keyboard sounds and simple melodies and chord changes that would be pleasant to a baby. I believe that this was done - by the filmmakers, not by Dawson - to appeal to teenage girl viewers' sense of need to nurture babies and take care of them.
     Despite the anti-pedophile message of the film – i.e., that some adult men (in this case, a man played by Jason Bateman) are attracted to teenage girls - it's difficult to deny the possibility that the film was designed to desensitize teenage girls to inordinate amounts of attention from adults. Not every teenage girl who watches Juno watches it with a parent or supervisor present to put it in proper context for them. A girl may understand the message of the film, but the film in no way teaches girls to recognize early signs of inordinate attention from adults; it only teaches them to recognize these signs when it is too late (and the adult is already touching you).
     Furthermore, there are not just one, but two films, released in 2020, which depict teenage girls traveling across state lines in order to get abortions. They are the British film Never Rarely Sometimes Always, released earlier this year, and the American film Unpregnant, slated for release soon.
     Granted, someone who gets pregnant through consensual sex past their state's age of consent, should be free to seek an abortion. But taking together everything which I have mentioned above, it's impossible to deny that the entertainment industry is destigmatizing teen pregnancy. And I personally believe that when artists and filmmakers overzealously destigmatize teen pregnancy, it risks sexualizing teenage girls.
     And films like these also normalize minors crossing state lines, a risky behavior which could more easily described as child trafficking if it weren't being done by other children (read: 17-year-olds). Sure, these films do spread awareness of the fact that abortion clinics are disappearing, forcing women to consider leaving the state to get abortions, and they also make the viewer aware that bad things could happen on the road. But the subtext and message of these films is that 17 is old enough, in any state, to get an abortion without telling one's parents.
     We must contend with a conundrum: if a girl is free to have sex with boys her own age and keep it a secret, then she is also free to have sex with adult men and keep it a secret. On the other hand, "slut-shaming" a girl for losing her virginity, could make it more likely that she would retreat to the shadows, which could increase the likelihood that adult men could take advantage of her secretly.
     I suppose that the only solution to this is that mothers should always be understanding when it comes to their daughters losing their virginity, and mothers should ask their daughters whether anyone besides the father of the baby (such as a much older boy, or a teacher, or a relative) has taken sexual liberties with the girl. Mothers who follow this advice, will help make it easier to find out who the real father of the girl's baby is, and also find out the identity of possible child predators, at the same time.

     Even if a state allows girls age 16 and 17 to have sex and get pregnant, or even get married, we should not automatically assume that the girl are running off and eloping with somebody their own age. Yes, the Constitution currently permits states to set ages of consent for sex and marriage at 16, or 17, or 18, if they please. But why is it that when a girl turns 16 or 17 or 18 in a given state, is she suddenly free to marry a hundred-year-old man who wants to have sex with a teenage girl?
     Sure, there are state laws that provide for an increased punishment when someone takes sexual advantage of a senior citizen (there is one in Illinois, for example), but those laws don't really get to the heart of the problem: Old men can marry girls less than half their age, and old women can marry boys less than half their age. This is why “Romeo and Juliet laws” are essential to establishing a reasonable maximum legal age for people who want to date and have sex with teenagers.
     I have not even begun to explain the myriad problems and oversights associated with child marriage and interstate child trafficking in the United States of America. The federal generic age of consent law (which sets the age at 16, but has exceptions down to age 13), and the fact that ten states have failed to set a minimum age for marriage, make it impossible to prevent interstate child trafficking, because a lot of the time it is legal when it occurs.
     This is why I have proposed passing a constitutional amendment, imbuing it with a duty to establish a minimum age whereby someone is deemed legally able to give fully informed consent to contract, work, driving, sex, marriage, tattooing, piercing, alcohol use, and tobacco use; and that most of those ages should be set at 16 or 17, and that the age limit for each activity be uniform across all states.

     We must also keep in mind that, just because New Hampshire has raised its minimum age for marriage, that doesn't mean that we are on a fast-enough path to ending child marriage. New York and New Jersey still allow teenagers to get married, with parents' and judges' permission. But also, just because states are afflicted with the problem of legal child marriage, that does not automatically mean that those states have the worst child marriage problems. As a matter of fact, Texas is the state with the highest number of legal minors getting married, and all of those marriages are illegal. This means that states like New York and New Jersey need to ban child marriage legally, while Texas already bans it and needs to work harder to prosecute people who marry people who are underage.
     I deliberately chose not to say “people they know to be underage” in that last sentence, because as the presumably more mature person in the situation, the adult has the responsibility to verify the minor's age. Somehow we are told that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, meanwhile, reasonably believing a minor age 13 to 15, to be over 16, functions as a legal excuse for committing sexual acts with a minor. This is because the federal generic age of consent law contains a defense for breaking the law. This basically means that if a child, aged 13 to 15, gets a fake I.D., and shows it to an adult who wants to have sex with them, then the adult could theoretically use the fact that they “reasonably believed the child to be over 16”, as a defense for committing what would otherwise be considered statutory rape, and they could evade punishment under that federal generic age of consent law.
     I should clarify that, when I refer to “adults” in the previous paragraph, I am only referring to some adults; that is, adults age 18 and 19, when and if bring children whom are less than four years younger than they are, across state lines. This state of affairs is the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court case Esquivel-Quintana v. Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions, which interpreted the federal generic age of consent law in this manner.
     Looking at these facts – from Esquivel-Quintana, to the codified, acceptable “I thought she was 16” defense for violating the federal statutory rape law, to the variety in state ages of consent, and the potential battle over whether the federal government or the state government from which the child was taken should have jurisdiction in child trafficking cases – it is almost completely impossible for an ordinary citizen (even one who has researched the topic at length, like myself) to discern what ages of consent are in any given state.
     If the exceptions cause the average citizen to have no idea what the law is, then how can we be expected to know when we are violating it?

     Much of American society doesn't even frown upon child marriage. New York teen Courtney Stodden was only 16 years old when she got a breast augmentation, and legally married actor Doug Hutchinson, then aged 50. That age difference of 34 years means that Hutchinson - most notable for his role as the angry, violent prison guard Percy in Stephen King's The Green Mile – was more than three times older than his bride.
     Perhaps not surprisingly - considering Hutchinson's ability to display anger in his roles, and given the large age difference (the kind that is often romanticized as “a May-December romance”) - Stodden revealed recently that her relationship with Hutchinson was fraught with domestic abuse.
     In Britain, a pageant mom named Sarah Burge – and later, another woman named Josie Cunningham – promised National Health System vouchers to their daughters, so that their daughters (small children at the time) would be able to choose whether to get breast augmentations when they turn 18.
     Headlines objecting to the women “getting boob jobs for their young daughters” were deemed sensationalistic because, apparently, the fact that the girls will not be allowed to access the money until they're 18, is supposed to make what their mothers did acceptable.
     You can read about those stories by reading the following articles:     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2000871/Sarah-Burge-Human-Barbie-gives-daughter-boob-job-voucher-7th-birthday.html
     One mom on the (now thankfully cancelled) show Toddlers and Tiaras allowed her daughter to wear fake boobs and a fake big butt during a pageant. Another pageant mom on the same show allowed her daughter to dance inside of a cage. But we are supposed to be consoled by the fact that, as commenters on the topic say, "People are not watching Toddlers and Tiaras with their children." That is not the point. People have already put their children on Toddlers and Tiaras.
     Children are not supposed to be cage-dancing, twerking go-go girls by the time they're seven years old. But I suppose that pageant moms, and women who watch Toddlers and Tiaras and don't see anything wrong with it, use a twisted logic to excuse or deny this sexualization of children. In 2015, a woman named Ashley Wright appeared in a video, which was circulated on Facebook, which showed her pole-dancing with her infant goddaughter in her arms.
     You can learn more about that story at the following link:

     It's likely that the kind of mother who would have no objection to a young girl being around an adult who is pole-dancing while they're on video, both think to themselves, "It's not a stripper pole, it's for dancing. There's nothing implicitly sexual about pole-dancing." This is the type of deluded thinking to which women who call themselves "exotic dancers" are prone.
     Women like these, pageant moms, and others, might also think: “There is nothing that my minor child could do, which could possibly be considered sexual in nature, because it's a child.” This thought process leads them into a false sense of security, because they can describe anyone who's pointing out that they are sexualizing their child, as someone who's "looking at their child in a sexual manner", i.e., they could describe the person as a pedophile. These sorts of parents are "shooting the messenger".
     The logic of the "nothing children do is sexual" idea is misguided in the first place. Children do have sexual urges, and many of them do begin masturbating at young ages. But that biological fact alone, does not mean that it is appropriate or healthy to guide a child to dress in a skimpy fashion, or dance in a manner which the adult knows perfectly well is intended to be provocative. And certainly not in public, nor on film, nor anywhere but the privacy of the child's own room, while they are alone.
     A child that young should be nowhere near a "dancing pole", and certainly not on video, for adults to watch; 1) because it could be construed as grooming the child, even if it's not, and 2) the average viewer would reasonably conclude that the woman is trying to either teach the child to dance against a pole, or else communicate that it's completely normal for the child to watch an adult dancing against a pole. Pole dancing is sexual, pole dancing that close to a child is grooming, and it is wrong.

     Some parents evidently feel that their child's right to “express themselves” somehow invites the parent to throw away all traditional ideals of decency, regarding what is or is not an appropriate relationship for parents and children to have, when it comes to talking about sexual matters, going through puberty, and becoming an adult. Several times in the last few years, a few women have even thought it fitting to buy their teenage daughters vibrator (i.e., vibrating sex toys), and then write a whole articles about it.
     You can read articles like that at the following links:     http://bluntmoms.com/i-bought-my-teen-daughter-a-vibrator/
     Evidently, these types of parents feel that the fact that children have sexual urges, makes it OK to desensitize them to sexual touch early (which is what giving them sex toys at young ages will inevitably do to them), and, furthermore, brag about it in a newspaper and to all of your co-workers. Suppose one of those co-workers were a pedophile, and nobody knew that fact, and he or she read the article, and maybe has even seen the author's daughter on “Take Your Daughter to Work Day”?
     Suppose one of the girl's classmates finds out. The girl, of course, doesn't deserve to have her privacy invaded, but in case it does get invaded, who wants to be known as “the girl whose mom bought her a vibrator” while they're still in school? Furthermore, who wants to be known as “the woman who bought her daughter a vibrator?”
     But unfortunately, buying your children sex toys is just another thing that's been added to the pile of things we're supposed to tolerate. Adult women, too, have had sex toys given to them as gifts by their mothers; this young British woman explains in this article why she is not bothered by that: http://thetab.com/uk/2017/04/22/mum-bought-first-vibrator-greatest-thing-shes-ever-done-38435.
     At some point, we have got to realize that this overt, brazen, almost proud sexualization of children, is most assuredly not being done in the name of protecting the child's right to express themselves sexually by themselves in the privacy of their own room. If that's what this was about, then there would be no need for the woman to publicly proclaim that she has bought her child a sex toy. Whatever happened to appropriate boundaries between parents and their children?

     If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then ignorance of children's lack of ability to fully consent - and ignorance of the needs which arise from the innate disadvantage which children have in protecting and defending themselves from physical and sexual assault and abuse - should likewise be no excuse.
     Additionally, in protecting themselves from parents who are sexually objectifying them (and let's all remember that this is being done for money; fashion models and dancers make money, and parents want to be taken care of with that money in their old age).
     Just because the mother who is instructing her daughter to dance in a cage is not physically molesting her daughter, that does not make this behavior any less child sexual abuse.
     Something is either taking advantage of a child in a sexually inappropriate manner, or it is not. Just as it is most certainly child sexual abuse, and sexual degradation and humiliation of children, when Abby Lee Miller (of Abby Lee's Dance Company and the show Dance Moms) paid Mackenzie Ziegler to massage her feet, kissed Maddie Ziegler against her will to get her to be comfortable with kissing a boy during a dance, and placed her foot on top of Mackenzie while she was on the floor as part of a planned photograph.
     This is simulated child domination, and it has deliberate sexual undertones; both because an adult woman kisses a girl against her will, and because the show has featured numerous dances, and costumes, which fans as well as mothers knew were way too “adult” or “mature” for their young daughters to perform. The revealing clothing on that show continues to this day.
     Dance Moms should be cancelled, and so should MTV's shows about teen pregnancy, just as Toddlers and Tiaras was cancelled before them (and for many of the same reasons). Dance Moms is soft-core child pornography.


     Nearly every sector of American society is haunted by the spectre of objectification, from fashion to sports to molestation in I.C.E. custody and public schools. Jeffrey Epstein attended Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows, and was funded by the company's C.E.O.. Teenage girls across the country are still wearing clothing made by the underpaid prison laborers employed by Leslie Wexner, a probably Israeli agent and a definite promoter of objectification.
     A chief objective of people working in both the fashion industry and the entertainment industry, is to lure young actors and models in, to keep the industry going. That's how every industry recruits new employees, but that's also how a pyramid scheme operates. The newest investors – i.e., the youngest people involved – are invariably the ones who bear the heaviest costs, and figuratively as well as literally “get screwed”.

     Girls are being bombarded with sexual imagery (from Nickelodeon, Disney, MTV, underwear companies, advertisements, etc.), and with pressure to grow up too soon (by drinking and smoking, getting piercings and tattoos, and engaging in other risky behaviors, including potentially dangerous behaviors that could change the trajectories of their lives).
     Teenagers these days get tattoos, thinking that it will make them cool, having no idea that tattoos (and brands, as we saw with the N.X.I.V.M. Hollywood sex trafficking cult scandal) are one of the chief ways that human traffickers keep track of their victims.
     Teens also fail to understand that the kind of person who would think they're “cool” for having a tattoo at a young age, isn't the kind of person they should hang around. This could include adults who prey on children. Furthermore, displaying that you want to change your appearance, shows that you're in need of attention and approval; the kind of attention that someone who preys on teens would be glad to provide.

     We are kidding and deluding ourselves willfully, if we allow ourselves to think that all of this is not by design. We must avoid falling prey to what human traffickers and people wishing to sexualize children want us to do; we must avoid falling for their traps.
     It was reported recently that several past victims of sex trafficking from Wisconsin got visible tattoos indicating that they had been abused. I'm not just referring to people who draw dots on their hands to signify that they're being abused. I'm talking about sizeable, visible tattoos that could potentially indicate to an onlooking human trafficker that the person has been abused (read: is prone to becoming victimized easily).
     You can read about these tattoos at the following link:
     Let alone the clear indication that the tattoo is there to point out the past abuse, any tattoo – especially on a child – could be interpreted by child traffickers as a sign that the child wants to be cool so desperately that they are willing to allow someone to inflict pain on them, in a way that permanently alters their appearance, before they are old or mature enough to decide to make such an important decision.
     Children's right to be free, does not mean that their parents are free to derelict their duty to adequately protect children from bad decisions. I can hardly even call them “decisions” because a child cannot make a decision if the child is not old enough to consent.


     The sexualization of children is not solely present in the entertainment industry. Children are being objectified in other ways; at home, at school, and at their first jobs.
     Children are groomed by their parents and teachers, to dress like adults, including tight clothing which is often restrictive of breathing (tight collars), posture (high heels), or too revealing (tight pants). Parents do this to children to get them looking mature enough to attend official functions, including school events, plays, music recitals, etc., and also for jobs. Some parents even say “you have to sort of prostitute yourself to get a job” as advice to their children.
     Children are also pressured to work too early; Kyle Rittenhouse - the “young man” from Antioch, Illinois who recently shot three people and killed two in Kenosha, Wisconsin - is a great example. He was asked to help guard a business, and now three people are dead, and Rittenhouse has been charged with murder, as a result of it.
     Additionally, children are pressured to pass rites of adulthood early - such as having sex, and drinking and smoking - as ways to avoid being labeled “uncool”. School children who have sex for the first time under pressure to avoid being labeled uncool, are losing their virginity in a situation in which they have not fully consented, and cannot fully consent. Pressuring teenagers to lose their virginity before they're ready – which is a significant reason for boys being bullied – is always virgin-shaming, and prude-shaming, and can cause first sex to occur on a non-consensual basis. Bullying other kids for still being virgins is a form of child sexual abuse.

     This all makes sense, to myself, and to you, the reader. But how many parents in America have actually thought this whole thought-process through? How many parents actually understand that wedgies, are arguably a form of child sexual assault, because they are a form of sexual humiliation, and are intended to cause pain to the genitals? The law does not regard wedgies and virgin-shaming as the forms of child sexual abuse that they are.
     It's not that every kid who gives a wedgie should be required to register as a sex offender while they're still a child; it's just that parents need to teach their kids to stop bullying other kids and giving them wedgies. And every child should be free to defend themselves from bullies even if teachers are not around; this freedom is interfered with whenever school zero-tolerance policies for bullying prevent a child from defending themselves instead of going to a teacher to break up a fight (when one might not be available).

     The harm which children risk facing every day at school, and at home, are being ignored – as a result of parents' negligence and desensitization to sexualization and objectification of children - are not taken anywhere near as seriously as they should be.
     This objectification of children is done for both sexual and work purposes; bosses who see a child's body as a potential tool in their factories, are objectifying children in an economic sense, but not necessarily in a sexual sense. Unless the boss in question is Leo Frank, who objectified his victim in both manners.


     The earlier you can get a child to start working, the sooner they can make their own money. Many parents reason that that is acceptable, because it will “get the kid out of my house sooner rather than later”.
     However, a parent's responsibilities do not end when a child starts to earn money. A teenager who makes his or her own money may be more likely to get a job, but a child who makes their own money is also more likely to engage in risky behaviors using that money, and more likely to get started on a path to maturing too quickly, starting a family too soon.
     A family that looks the other way, or is supportive, when a teen gets an exploitative job, is likely to look the other way when the teenager gets pregnant out of wedlock by a significantly older partner. And the parents will likely reason that “at least her husband is taking care of her”. He might be paying for her needs, but when mobsters say “I'll take care of him”, it's a threat of violence. The kind of man who would marry a teenage girl, would not be above promising to “take care of her”, and then laughing to himself every time he “took care of her” by raping her, or by tricking her into sex after he cheated on her, or by beating her up.
     Men who marry significantly younger women are likely to abuse them, because when a young woman finds herself trapped in a marriage with a much older man, she realizes that she didn't give herself enough time to date men her own age. And so, the types of dominant older men who are shameless enough to marry teenage girls and knock them up, are likely to resort to bribery, shame, guilt, manipulation, intimidation, and even threats, coercion, or violence, in order to “discourage” his wife from leaving.

     Many Americans think that legal emancipation is a solution to teenagers' lack of freedom, and possibly even to teens being abused by their parents. But emancipation – which carries with it the right to live alone - also exposes minors to freedoms for which they are not yet ready, psychologically and/or physically.
     The fact that a judge emancipates a minor, and the fact that a minor makes their own money, should not be used to excuse dating, having sex with, or marrying that minor; nor pressuring them to work too often, or work against their will.
     It is ironic that many self-described libertarians support the legality of emancipating minors, and of having sex with emancipated minors, considering that legal emancipation of minors is arguably just another form of legalized crime; that is, the state (in this case, a judge) taking it into its own hands, to say that a child is an adult, when they clearly aren't an adult yet.
     Like Drew Barrymore wasn't, when she was emancipated at the age of 15 (after becoming addicted to cocaine). Keep in mind that Barrymore has refused to disclose the name of the person who took her virginity at 13, which suggests there's a good chance that the person was significantly older, and/or famous, and would suffer in terms of reputation from the disclosure of that information.
Whatever amount of good emancipation does to shield teens from abuse, it is off-set by the risk of potential harm to the child, which being emancipated at too young an age, poses.
     It is regrettable that emancipation of minors – as well as decreasing the age of consent, because “the French do it, so who cares” - has become acceptable. Especially considering that France is currently sheltering Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. Additionally, considering that the age of consent in the U.S. is lower than most people think it is, and there are variations in, exceptions to, and defenses for breaking, these laws.


     It is very likely that Jeffrey Epstein, and/or his handler and procurer Ghislaine Maxwell, took advantage of the vast dissimilarity in state age of consent laws, and/or took advantage of federal laws that effectually invalidate state age of consent laws, in the way they recruited teenage girls for sex. Perhaps Maxwell will even take advantage of these legal facts when and if she faces trial.
     I say that because Maxwell reportedly found older teenage girls, whom she would use to recruit younger and younger teenage girls, for Jeffrey and for herself (and, so it seems, for their future blackmail victims).
     To reiterate, and to phrase this in a way I haven't explained yet: The generic federal age of consent law, and the interpretation of that law which has been set as judicial precedent by the case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, have resulted in a situation in which people aged 16 to 20 who traffic children across state lines, cannot be punished, as long as the child they are trafficking is less than four years younger than the trafficker. That's because, while the states would like to punish the trafficker, they can't, because it's interstate child trafficking, and therefore federal jurisdiction. And even though it's the federal government's territory, the federal government won't punish it, even though it theoretically could (if changes were made to the law).
     If Ghislaine Maxwell recruited teenagers between the ages of 16 and 20, to find minors between the ages of 12 or 13 and 15 to victimize, then Maxwell is almost certainly a beneficiary of this “loophole” (or, perhaps more appropriately, “federal government interstate child trafficking incentive program”) which I'm describing.

     When discussing Maxwell, we should keep in mind, another one of her tactics to find victims: She would get to know them, and make sure they trusted her, and she would give them promises of money in exchange for massaging Jeffrey Epstein. Of course, the deal changed the moment the girl entered Epstein's presence, and she would be ordered to disrobe, and touch Epstein's nipples, and his penis, and eventually submit to sex with him.
     The point is that Maxwell plied girls with promises of money. Epstein's victims told reporters that they told other high school girls about these massages as if they were real opportunities to earn some spare money. And of course, a teenage girl is not going to have a well-developed sense of what is or what isn't an honest way to make money, so she might not care that she'll get paid to touch an old man. But then again, she doesn't know that it's a set-up for her to get raped.
     Situations like these, are why parents need to be understanding when their children inform them that they have begun to have sex, but why parents also need to take a strong stance against sexual exploitation of their child (as well as work exploitation). We must also be wary that the capitalist system, which affords more protection to property owners and bosses than to propertyless workers and renters, is trying at all times to subtly commit forms of wage theft against the worker.
     This might all sound like communist propaganda. But to the capitalist or conservative parent who has never considered socialist ideas until now, I say this: The less adult workers are paid, the less money and resources they will have to take care of their children, without help from other family members, second jobs, loans, the government, or whatever income source.
     And the more badly children need money and resources, and the more likely parents will be to allow their children to work when they're too young, or to let their kid get exploited or sexually harassed (or aggressively flirted with) on the job, or to let some old man marry their daughter for money.
     This is how the capitalist system – let alone the federal and state age of consent and child trafficking laws - is set up to benefit people like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, whether or not Epstein is dead or alive, and whether or not Epstein is embedded in Wall Street and the political system.
     The purposes of sexualizing children, and pressuring them to work, too early, promote and serve each other. If you can make a child work, you can use the fact that they work and earn their own money, to make excuses when they get pregnant and married too early. If you can sexualize a child too early, then they'll get pregnant early, and they'll need to accept a job to support their baby, earlier. All of this serves to benefit men who have power and money who want to use it to have sex with teenage girls.
     And the more acceptable teen pregnancy is, the more people will deny that the "teen camgirling" and "underage prostitution" which goes on across the country, is wrong, and is actually child pornography and child sex trafficking. And those phrases are euphemisms too; "child pornography" is a euphemism for "images or videos of children being raped or sexually exploited", and "child sex trafficking" is a euphemism for "paid rape of a child". The fact that these euphemisms exist, owes partially to the fact that laws have to be specific, but also it stands as a testament to how much we have allowed ourselves to be desensitized to things like children becoming prostitutes.

     Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Alan Dershowitz, has even argued that the age of consent should be lowered, in part on the grounds that members of racial minorities seem to have sex at early ages.
     But what Dershowitz fails to consider is that teens who are members of racial minorities are more likely to lose their virginity at younger ages, and also more likely to become prostitutes at younger ages, because racial minorities tend to be poorer than white people in America. Despite what today's sex-positive young adults say about some sex work being voluntary (and it is), people do often resort to prostitution out of desperation. That does not mean that all sex work deserves to have shame attached to it; it just means that we have to make a distinction between sex work that is done enthusiastically by all parties involved, versus sex work which is submitted to out of a lack of ability to make money through more legitimate, and less exploitative and risky, means. 

     Teenage African-American girls living in Washington, D.C. since the 1980s have probably known the whole time that, if they can manage to seduce a politician or government worker, or a visiting diplomat, they can get a lot of money out of them (whether it's as a prostitute, or through a lawsuit).
     This is not to say that those sexual assault lawsuits would be without cause; they would, and rape allegations are true more than 99.5% of the time, so such lawsuits certainly need to happen more often. And it is hardly the fault of inner-city minors that politicians or government workers would want to take advantage of them.
     You can read more about the myth that many rape allegations are false, at the following link:

     My point is this: It is clear - from the Epstein-Maxwell scandal, to the Barney Frank "underage male prostitution" scandal, to the Franklin Cover-Up in Nebraska - that a significant number of politicians are certainly interested in "having sex with teenage girls", and that, because of their expertise at knowing the law, and even creating it, politicians, lawyers, and judges have an edge, when it comes to abusing children, and crafting the laws in a way that makes sure that they (and maybe also others) are never punished for it.
     And these government employees are perfectly willing to put people like Alan Dershowitz out in front, to plead their case, and get no pushback, but instead get lauded as the champion of protecting an attorney's duty to adequately represent his client (i.e., statutory rapists).

     New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, in fact, continues to hold office, despite charges that he "slept with underage hookers" in the Dominican Republic. I should also note, however, that those women recanted, saying they were paid to make the charges. But then again, it's possible that Menendez really did what he's accused of doing, and that the women were paid to recant and lie about it.
     Either way, anyone who's "underage" (i.e., a child) should not be referred to as a "prostitute". Phrasing things this way, leads people to believe that a child can become a prostitute willingly; they cannot, because they cannot give fully informed consent to such a thing. That's because their pre-frontal cortexes are not as well-developed as adults', which means that their decision centers aren't fully developed. That's why we aren't supposed to be allowing children to make long-term decisions!

     Besides that, children's bodies and minds cannot handle being subjected to sexual acts, nor being penetrated; those are not things which children are capable of handling, neither physically or emotionally.
     The fact that young boys can have sex with grown women without being penetrated, and with no risk of the child being made pregnant, should not be used to excuse female schoolteachers raping little boys, nor to excuse men having non-penetrative intercourse with underage girls.
     The mere fact that a particular instance - or type - of adult-child sexual activity, does not always involve overt, brutal, physical harm, force, and violence, does not alone make it consensual, and doesn't make it not rape. Coercion exists on a spectrum, or a continuum;  ranging from overt physical force at worst, to pressuring and manipulating people at "best" (or least bad).
     It would not be necessary to explain all of this, if pedophiles were not on a mission to destigmatize pedophilia by confusing people about it, and they are actually willing to go through all the tortured logic it takes to justify these sorts of predatory behaviors.
     I have explained some of this tortured logic in my previous piece about Libertarian presidential candidate Arvin Vohra. That article can be read at the following link:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/01/remove-arvin-vohra-from-libertarian.html


      Parents must teach their children more about kidnapping than just “people want to steal you”.
     Even “people want to steal you for money” is misleading, because it shields the child from the sexual aspect of the crime. This is done to avoid exposing the child to sexual ideas, but the result could be that the child fails to draw a connection between sex and “being stolen”, such that the child fails to understand that they could be subjected to unwanted sexual touching without being moved to a different location. If a child hasn't heard the terms “kidnapper” and “child molester”, then the child doesn't fully understand why they should avoid a kidnapper, and doesn't fully understand how serious and important it is that they do avoid them.
     The fact that parents teach their children the difference between “good touch” and “bad touch”, does not guarantee that all parents will do so, and also it could fail to teach the child between pleasurable wanted touch and pleasurable unwanted touch.
     Some people believe that Oprah is a pedophile, and would accuse her of using the following idea to confuse people about pedophilia, but that possibility aside, I think it is absolutely true what Oprah said about what some child molesters do to get away with their crimes. They subject children to genital touching in a way that confuses them about whether the touching is wanted by the child.
     Now, the child is obviously incapable of giving informed consent to such genital touching, whether his or her parents are there or not, so I am not trying to say that there's any possibility of such touching being consensual. What I'm saying – and what I think Oprah was trying to say – is that if a child knows nothing about sex, then the first time someone touches their genitals, they might think it is pleasurable, but have no idea it's wrong. And that's how child molesters harm their victims less badly than they could have, in order to get away with it.
     Say, for example, an adult touches a child's genitals, and does not subject them to any uncomfortable restraint, or any form of bodily harm or pressure or pain in the process. That is undeniably child molestation, and the notion that the child suffered no (or “little”) physical harm in the process of “having sex for the first time”, is at worst deluded, and at best only true in the most technical of senses. And even if that, then still, only for boys, and only sometimes; for example, when boys are not being penetrated.
     No distinction should be made between the type of physical pain inflicted on a child in a vicious rape, versus the type of physical discomfort which a child endures in an act of unwanted penetration (whether with fingers, a penis, a sex toy, their own fingers at the direction of an adult, etc.).
     However supposedly “low-pain” it is, the penetration of a child, and the act of directing a child to penetrate his or herself, is always child sexual assault (i.e., child rape). To say otherwise is to start down a stupid, senseless conversation. No number of attempts to throw twisted “logic” at this situation can make child sexual assault or child sexual abuse acceptable. This will always devolve into a “whataboutism” debate, in which the assailant reasons that what they did isn't so bad because they could have done worse things, or could have molested or raped their victim more times than they did, or that the child deserved the rape or molestation as “punishment” because of whatever good and helpful things the assailant might have done for his victim in the past.
     Additionally, sex invariably involves a level of discomfort, especially for the partner or partners being penetrated, and that is why people who have not developed their ability to process discomfort and pleasure at the same time – and to emotionally handle the act of lovemaking simultaneously – should not enjoy the act of sex until they are capable of giving fully informed consent, and until they have experience setting boundaries. That need for experience setting boundaries, which is needed in sexual relationships, is why we give teens the right to vote and the right to have sex around the same time. We give them another avenue, besides sex and besides negotiating their rights with their parents, where they can learn to set boundaries without losing their cool or making rash decisions.

     All of this stands to reason that: 1) ages of consent are a mess in this country; 2) few people seem to have done enough thinking about “bad touch” and “kidnappers want to steal you”; and 3) few people seem to have a firm logical reasoning regarding why children are never mature enough to handle sexual activity.
     Epstein and Maxwell, and the 23 molestations that happen each school day in America, aside, these three facts alone, ought to be all the information we need, to conclude that there is a child trafficking epidemic, a child sexualization epidemic, a child marriage epidemic, a pedophilia normalization epidemic, and a grooming normalization epidemic, in this country.
     But it's because of that desensitization and normalization to pedophilia and the sexualization of children (which is basically our entertainment now), that we don't notice the marriage and trafficking as much. And because child molestation and trafficking are uncomfortable to talk about – and perhaps also because of anti-intellectualism – most Americans aren't talking about the details of problems like child trafficking (and the issues concerning the laws surrounding it).
     That's why it's necessary to have this conversation. And that's why it's necessary to spread ideas like “Stranger danger doesn't cover it. Most sexual assaults against children are committed by someone the child knows, just like most rapes of adults are committed by someone the victim knows.” And who is a teacher, but a government employee who is a stranger to the child until they are suddenly teaching them things (including things about their bodies, about consent, and about boundaries)? Do you expect a government employee to teach your child to question authority enough to know when an authority figure is trying to take advantage of them sexually?
     I'm all for reducing teen pregnancies, but the contraceptives in the nurse's offices are not just there for the girls who are having sex with teenage boys; they're also there for the girls who are having sex with their adult teachers. As I explained, ensuring that teens above the age of consent, have adequate access to contraceptives when they decide to lose their virginity, is one thing, but overzealously defending teenagers' rights to access contraception is the problem. We should not pretend that MTV is not surreptitiously promoting teen sexual activity when it broadcasts advertisement for contraception during airings of 16 and Pregnant. We should remain suspicious when a public school teacher is enthusiastically or angrily defending the right of teenagers below the age of consent to access contraception at school, or access abortions at young ages, without informing their parents. 
     [Note: The need to inform both parents about a minor's sexual activity should be considered null and void if one or both of the parents has sexually abused the child; any girl who has been raped by her father or adoptive father should be free to get an abortion regardless of her age, as long as the girl's mother or another trusted guardian is informed, preferably before the fact.]
     Public school teachers accused of rape or sexual abuse, invariably use taxpayer money to defend themselves in court; because taxpayer money is the vast majority of the money they earn while they're teachers, and because most other funds come from dues collected from the worker for the purpose of providing legal defenses for unionized teachers charged with crimes. That is why any and all future public education must be participated in on absolutely voluntary terms, and it is why no taxpayer money should fund public schools.

     All taxpayer funds which are wasted in such a manner – i.e., to first pay schoolteachers to teach our kids about sex using a book, and then to pay lawyers who defend these people (99.5% of whom are, statistically, guilty child abusing monsters) – should never have been spent, let alone collected (and certainly not in an extortive, coercive manner), in the first place.

    It should be clear, by this point in the article, that the law, and the relaxation of social mores, are key stumbling blocks on the path to protecting children from sexualization and sexual abuse and assault.
    But next, I'd like to focus on economic aspects, and where they intersect with legal oversights in providing for the prosecution of child abuse, to explain how and why the government and the economy work together – as the capitalist state – to provide economic and political incentives to sell yourself and other people into the types of human trafficking and child trafficking which they want to promote.

    Just as, during the Civil War, the Union government in the North didn't care as much about abolishing slavery as it did preserving the union and ensuring it would still have a way to profit from the labor of black people, today's U.S. federal government, and many of the states, don't care about abolishing child trafficking.
    They want to do the child trafficking, just like the North made freed blacks submit to the federal government, and thus replaced chattel slavery with political slavery (and, at that, without much improvements to the material conditions at the time, in the view of Frederick Douglass).
    Our government is just like the Union North; it wants to look like it's abolishing child trafficking, but it also wants to make money off of it, while finding new people to victimize (telling them that their previous master was worse to them). And the federal government does make money off of these legal forms of child trafficking; through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, through the Department of Education, and through C.P.S. and D.C.F.S. -type departments which oversee custody cases (all of which are plagued with child sexual assault cases).
    I mean, if 23 kids are molested each school day in America, then what is a public school bus, but a literal vehicle for trafficking children into the custody of child molesters? The only reason I don't want to make it illegal for kids to ditch school is because of how many child molesters teach in public school.
    The fact that citizens can't say for sure that the classroom is safer than the street, is why it's impossible to get any progress on the child trafficking issue, without simultaneously reforming sex trafficking laws, as well as the way children are taught and disciplined (and, in my opinion, school admissions birthdates, to get students out of high school before they become legal adults, among other reasons).



    Once child trafficking is made legal to prosecute in all instances, we will be on the way to a solution. But changing the laws such that all child trafficking can be prosecuted – even when it's older teens trafficking younger teens, and even when the victim “defrauded the adult with a fake I.D.” (another predator-enabling delusion) – will not necessarily help ensure that all child trafficking will be prosecuted. There will still the problem of plea deals, and possibly Non-Disclosure Agreements (N.D.A.s) depending on the state.
    Additionally, people will still be having arguments about whether 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds are old enough to get married, and whether new laws against child trafficking unfairly discriminate against teens who “just happen to” cross state lines while hanging out with much younger children.
    And the possibility of future constitutional battles around this issue, as well as the prospect of more rape cases arising in the courts, carries with it the reality that the more people get raped, the more lawyers get paid to represent the accuser and the accusee. It is hardly “conspiracy-minded thinking” to reason, from this fact, that, in some sense, attorneys benefit from rape, and from child rape; in fact, they benefit from all problems which could result in lawsuits.

    Think about it this way: We drive cars, despite knowing how unsafe they can be. Knowing this, why hasn't a concerned attorneys' union, or a prominent insurance company, come out in favor of broad reforms which would result in increased safety for drivers, citing unsustainable rates to insure drivers at the current time? For the same reason that a concerned attorneys' union has not done the same, regarding the high risk involved in continuing to leave child trafficking legal in many cases, citing the high cost to accusers (who are children who can't work to earn money) in terms of lawyers' fees.
    It's because attorneys stand to benefit from all problems in which someone could potentially be sued. If the attorneys can work both sides, and make people think that their clients are both at fault, then they can profit, and nobody will figure out that it's the attorneys who want these problems to go on unsolved, so they can profit through endless lawsuits intended to fix the same problems, and to fix the cracks in the same broken system, over and over again.

    It's also because there are no well-known concerned attorneys' unions, because the B.A.R. Association dominates all of them. It does this through deceptively naming itself, such that people are led to erroneously conclude that the state or national bar associations have anything to do with creating or administering bar exams for new attorneys. The National Conference of Bar Examiners, a non-profit corporation based in Madison, Wisconsin, actually administers the bar exam in all but two jurisdictions in America.
     But despite this fact, the state and national bar associations that use the initialization “B.A.R.” (which stands for British Accreditation Registry) remain the dominant attorneys' unions. And they are not only unconcerned about legal child trafficking; they are almost certainly the ones who are helping to keep it legal, and to continue the various legal forms of government-sponsored child trafficking, in the first place.

     Although the American Bar Association insists that it supports the punishment of child traffickers (in articles such as this one: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/attorneys/juvenile_sex_offenderpolicy/), one Southern judge described the National Bar Association as an association for "homosexual pedophiles". Alex Jones's radio co-host, David Knight, called the organization "gay pedophiles who are covering up each other's sex crimes".

     That may sound like a conspiracy theory. However, in Minnesota in 2010, attorney Aaron Biber was charged with molesting a 15-year-old boy. Before that, Biber had been slated to become the president of the Minnesota State Bar Association.
     You can read more about that story at the following link:

     Additionally, in 2011, while running for re-election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, justice David Prosser Jr. was rated "qualified" by more members of the Milwaukee Bar Association than the number of members who voted for all of his opponents combined. This occurred despite, or perhaps because of, the fact, that three years prior, it became public knowledge that Prosser had stopped a lawsuit involving allegations of sexual abuse by a priest, to go forward, back in the 1970s. Prosser's decision to prevent the case from going forward, was reportedly predicated on the notion that calling the child victim to testify would subject him to further trauma. After this controversy, Prosser became
     You can learn more about Prosser at the following links:

     Since the American Bar Association, and the state bar associations, are the most prominent attorneys' guilds in their jurisdictions, it would be fair to conclude that many attorneys and judges have belonged to at least one of such groups. That's why, when we see two or three bar association lawyers trafficking children, it's possible that there are many, many more.
     Especially considering the unprecedented access which they have to the federal and state legal codes, and their access to elected officials in positions to alter legislation in manners which favor well-connected people who want to molest their children and then molest someone else's kids at their government jobs the next day.
     That's why the harm to children, which is posed by the legal system and lawyers (as well as judges who sell juvenile delinquents to for-profit prisons), should not be underestimated.

     And the police are a threat to children's safety as well.
     Right now, prosecutors' offices across the country are flooded with child pornography cases. The fact that each and every criminal act against a child, found in such videos, must be documented and detailed, may help put the offender away, but it also means that there are government employees in police departments and prosecutors' offices who are watching child pornography all day long.
     One negative effect of this, is that government employees who are revolted by child pornography, must watch it as part of their jobs, and cannot always ask for a break, or ask to be assigned to another case, to prevent themselves from being sexually traumatized and unable to make love to their spouse. Another negative effect is that continued exposure to child pornography could potentially desensitize investigators to watching acts of child rape. They might even begin to enjoy it.
     That's why I believe it's possible that police procedures, regarding collection of evidence of child sex crimes through video, have resulted in a situation in which those officers who "have the strongest stomach" for watching those types of crimes, will be more likely to be hired or get a job.
     So unless police departments learn to discriminate between an officer who "has a strong stomach" for child pornography, and an officer who is desensitized to it - suppose, for example, an officer is observed laughing at, mocking, or joking about a child rape victim, and not punished - we should be worried that there could be child predators among our police.

     But I digress; on to the intersection of economics and politics, in regards to how and why your children are being legally trafficked by government.


     I have explained above how capitalist exploitation and the state work together to sexualize children, and force them to mature too quickly, to become spouses and parents earlier, in order to need to work, in order to take care of children earlier, and in turn become more dependent upon bosses and government welfare programs to make ends meet, while bearing that additional burden of having children to take care of.
     But the capitalist state secures your children for trafficking, and debt enslavement, through an even more obvious manner than what I just described. This is to say that people who are familiar with how fascist governments operate, see it as obvious; the average American has no clue how insidious this program is.
     I'm referring, of course, to the Social Security system (and also to the U.S. Dollar).

     Most Americans are aware that the Social Security Administration manages the retirement savings of workers. But how many knew that child support is part of the Social Security system?
     Through Title IV of the Social Security Act, the federal government administers programs designed to benefit child welfare, such as T.A.N.F. (Temporary Aid for Needy Families), the Child Welfare Services Program, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, and Foster Care. Under Title IV, Part D of that act, the federal government also administers Child Support and Establishment of Paternity. Alimony is covered under Section 459 of Part D.
     Libertarian candidate Kash Jackson exposed this little-known fact - that child support is part of the Social Security system – as part of his 2018 campaign for governor of Illinois. Jackson, a Navy veteran and a father of three, believes that he was unfairly accused of child abuse and harassment by his ex-wife.
     Despite exposing the fact that Illinois child support rates are significantly higher than the rates found in other states, Jackson was described as a deadbeat dad, and a child support evader, by some members of the press and his critics.
     You can learn more about Kash Jackson's 2018 campaign, and his Restoring Freedom campaign, by visiting the following links:

     Jackson's personal child custody battle experience, and his comments and platform concerning the Social Security system, show us very clearly how the federal government, and especially the State of Illinois, work – even collude – to unfairly take children out of the care of parents who did nothing wrong.
     Whether the parent who loses custody is guilty of what they're accused of or not, empowering the courts to intercede in the custody dispute in this way, increases the chances that some government official(s) will attempt to take the child out of the custody of both parents without cause, and into state custody (where the child could be sexually and/or physically abused).

     At the 2019 Bughouse Square Debates in Chicago, attorney Daniel Epstein delivered a speech titled “At Least the Witches at Salem Got a Trial”. In that speech, Epstein told the crowd that prosecutors get paid per conviction. America's for-profit prisons constitute enough of a problem as it is, so the near-certain probability that people are being wrongly found guilty – just to fill the wallets and protect the reputations of judges and attorneys – should especially concern people who are worried about attorneys and government employees who may wish to harm children.
     The Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly known as the “Clinton omnibus crime bill”, was authored by Joe Biden. In Congress, Bernie Sanders railed against the bill for intruding upon Americans' civil liberties. However, Sanders decided to support the bill, because he was able to get his own bill, the Violence Against Women Act (V.A.W.A.) included in the Clinton-Biden bill, basically as a significant rider bill. The two pieces of legislation were passed on the same day.
     Sanders evidently decided that it was more important to pass V.A.W.A. - funding prosecutions of domestic abusers – than it was to fight the provisions of the rest of the crime bill. And protecting women from domestic violence is certainly an admirable goal. Unless you consider that: 1) protecting women from domestic violence is not a power granted to Congress; 2) the need to expend funds to protecting women from domestic violence has nothing to do with the federal government except in cases in which the domestic abuser crossed state lines during the commission of his crime; and 3) as a condition of getting V.A.W.A., we have to cope with the fact that the Clinton-Biden bill took away 19 types of automatic weapons.
     If the Clinton bill had never been signed into law, those weapons could have been used by women, to defend themselves and their children against stalkers, angry ex-husbands, rapist boyfriends, child molester boyfriends, kidnappers, home invaders, and other sorts of criminals and predators. It's not that shooting such a person is always a rational response; it's that the people can't trust the police to be there on time, or at all (read about the case of Warren v. D.C.). People in the position to protect their families from harm, and protect their domestic residences, need to have the means to defend themselves nearby, in case the police can't come or don't want to come.
     If federal funds can be spent for prosecutions every time a man stalks or abuses his wife, and federal funds can be spent to go after fathers who avoid child support payments, and anybody can be accused of anything and convicted and taken away from their children without evidence, because all the lawyers involved are working solely to make sure every attorney involved gets paid, then we have a very serious problem on our hands.
     It is a complete collapse of due process, the rule of law, and the notion that elected officials, government employees, and licensed attorneys, should be subject to the same laws as the people.

     Adults getting let off easily after molesting children is a legitimate concern, even if lawyers, judges, cops, etc., are not held to a lower standard. In 2019, a female attorney who was a guest on Sean Stone's show on RussiaToday (R.T.), told the host that C.P.S.-type agencies are helping parents who molest their children to get off with light sentences, such as going through counseling, or reading a pamphlet about why it is wrong to molest your child. This, at a time when most Americans feel that hard, long prison time is a more appropriate punishment for child molesters and child rapists.

     If prosecutors and judges can choose sides in child support battles, corroborate that side's allegations baselessly, and frame a parent for whatever crimes they wish, then they can separate the parent (or parents, if things go that far) from the child. They can put one or both of the parents into labor bondage, forcing them to work and earn money, and pay the state, for the privilege of seeing their biological children.
     This is the same thing that slave-masters did to “their” slaves, it's the same thing that I.C.E. does to people in its custody, and it's the same thing that farmers do to cows. The adults are separated from the children, in order to demoralize the adults and put them to work. The separation of adults, prevents adults from ever getting close enough to their children to protect them. Meanwhile, the children (or veal calves) are turned into dependent, immobile, unquestioning slaves, to be shaped and molded to the farmer or trafficker's desire. Or to the desire of whomever will purchase them next.
     When it comes to the Social Security system, “whomever will purchase them next” means America's debtors; China, Japan, and the Federal Reserve (and also the American public itself, or at least future elements of the public). Additionally, the European banks that bought up American local governments' debt around the time of the 2007-09 financial crisis.
     The people who directed those countries and banks to buy American debt, probably thought they were doing good things, but if you can buy someone's debt, you are paying their bills for them, and that means that until they pay you back, you have some control or leverage over them.
     Whomever owns, or will own, the American public debt, owns our children in part. That's because our governments borrow money and inflate at will, instead of balancing budgets and paying our bills as we go. The federal government acts as if, the more debt we contract, the better. This is what has caused the federal government to accumulate somewhere between $200 trillion and $300 trillion – if not more – by planning the growth of government, and planning future spending, seventy-five years into the future. This occurs, despite the constitutional limitation on military bills only being able to last for two years at a time; why not impose a similar limit on all other spending items?
     We sometimes hear the phrase “unfunded liabilities” when politicians talk about future spending that the federal government hasn't yet come up with a plan to pay for. “Major Fiscal Exposure” (M.F.E.) and “Major Reported Fiscal Exposure” refer to the total planned spending (i.e., that $200-$300 trillion figure over 75 years), while the term“unfunded liabilities” refers to the amount of that exposure that the government has not yet figured out how to fully fund.
     For more information on America's $200 trillion M.F.E., and the curiously similar estimate of a $200 trillion derivatives market during the financial crisis, read the following articles:

     What this all basically means, is that we are stealing from our grandchildren, by spending money we don't have, decades upon decades before our grandchildren will have a chance to earn money, pay part of that money back as taxes, and (hopefully) become significant contributors to the tax revenue stream.
     This is true, regardless of whether it is true that each American is liable to pay back the equivalent of the U.S. national debt divided by the U.S. population (or the number of working people, or whatever the idea is). [Note: This idea is popular in "sovereign citizens"' circles.]

     On one level, it is appropriate to point out that having a child support system exist as part of a program created to help retirees in their old age, is arguably a drain on the Social Security program. But what's going on here is even more insidious than we might think.
     If we're draining Social Security funding in order to separate parents from children, and in order to get kids swept up in the court system, then we're allowing wealthy, well-connected politicians and attorneys and judges deprive less wealthy retirees of their full Social Security benefits (that is, the full benefits which would more assuredly continue to exist fully funded into the future, if the federal child support system did not exist).
     Old wealthy and powerful senior citizens are robbing the poorer of the peers in their age-groups, to take children from their protective fathers' custody, in order to make children into slaves, whom are incapable of defending themselves against the state. This, after the government disarmed mothers and fathers who wished to own guns to defend their homes and families.
     I repeat: This is all by design.

     Your children and grandchildren, and their work, are collateral. The more you work, and pay taxes, the less they'll have to do the same. The government is not only separating us from our children; it is forcing us to choose between ourselves and our children, in terms of which one of us we prioritize financially.
     This is how government preys on our children's need for financial stability - and, typically, recruits the mother, whose need for financial stability is usually higher than that of the father - and thus, government gets our families roped into the Social Security system, which includes the child support and alimony systems.
     And the sooner the government can get your kid into one federal program, the sooner they can start moving them from one to another; from custody courts, to public school, to unemployment assistance, to T.A.N.F., and eventually onto Social Security retirement income.
     This trafficking of children from one government program to another, is not about taking care of your children from cradle to grave, it is about controlling them from cradle to grave. And furthermore, treating them like adults while they are children, and infantilizing them once they become adults and start complaining about the corrupt political and economic system with which they are being forced to comply.


     Given the above information, should it come as any surprise that the Social Security system (often abbreviated S.S.) has the same abbreviation as the SchutzStaffel? This is what I mean when I say that those familiar with how fascist governments operate, will recognize this child trafficking scheme for what it is, right away.
     The SchutzStaffel were the “protection squads” which were founded by Adolf Hitler in 1925. They are more commonly known as the “brown shirts”; they are volunteer paramilitary officers. These paramilitary volunteers are not unlike the self-styled “patriots” who show up armed to protests in Charlottesville, Portland, and Seattle. While Kyle Rittenhouse was working, some who guard private or public property are volunteers.
     I mention these “patriots” (more accurately, psychopaths who overzealously defend private property rights by inciting and using violence) because the SchutzStaffel, and the Nazi system, have more to do with modern times in America in 2020 than some Americans might think.
     Don't tell me that you've never thought, once in your life, “Oh, cool, the government gave me a 9-digit number that I have to memorize. Like I'm a concentration camp prisoner in the Holocaust. Um... Well, I'm glad that they didn't tattoo it onto me, at least?”
     They didn't need to tattoo it onto your body; they got you to voluntarily tattoo it onto your own mind. If all governments in the world collapse, you might still remember that number. We will not truly be free until that number ceases to matter to us, and we can forget it without fear that someone will be angry at us for doing so.
     I say, once more: This is all by design! U.S.-Nazi collaboration goes back a long time. There's Operation Paperclip, in which the U.S. and U.S.S.R. competed to bring Nazi scientists to their respective lands, to work on rocketry and nuclear technology and surveillance. American gun control laws were modeled after Nazi gun control laws, thanks to Senator Christopher Dodd, Sr.. American border guards were using Zyklon-B on immigrants in 1917, to “de-louse” them; more than 20 years before the Nazis used the same chemical to kill Jewish prisoners of war.
     [Note: You can learn about the American use of chemicals on immigrants in 1917, by reading articles about the topic of the "Bath Riots" at the Ciudad Juarez / El Paso, Texas border crossing point.]
     Americans and Nazis have been trading secrets for a hundred years. Did you think it was a coincidence that Nazis performed horrific experiments on “inferior races”, while the U.S. did something “completely different” and intentionally gave black people syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiments?


     And then there were the activities of the German-American Bund in the United States. That organization basically functioned as the Nazis' political arm in the U.S., and also as the American arm of the Nazi Youth Movement. 
     Adolf Hitler said, “Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state.” He also said “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” The Hitler Youth, and the German-American Bund, recruited American boys to become the neo-Nazi traitors who committed racist and political assassinations to quell dissent during the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s.
     I see the same thing, when I see a picture of Kyle Rittenhouse, or the famous picture of a young Adolf Hitler smiling devilishly as he hears that World War I has begun, or the video of the American boy in the German-American Bund smiling and miming punching motions after seeing a Jewish protester attacked (after he failed to attack the speaker, Fritz Kuhn). I see a frightened young person, eager to witness a fight, but snide in the assurance that they'll be protected from the real fighting (because of their age, or a position of power they'll eventually have).
     A child who can be tricked into loving violence, by the state, can be tricked into loving the state's violence against the child's own parents. The child can be tricked into joining the military, in exchange for nothing but poor pay and benefits, empty promises, and a drug addiction.

     The child could even get convinced to join the military when it turns 18. Did you know that active-duty military personnel cannot sue the military for rape? This is, in part, due to the sovereign immunity doctrine outlined in the 11th Amendment (which still allows people to sue government employees), and it is also due to the chilling effect on speech and questioning authority which the military command hierarchy imposes on subordinates. 
     A documentary made for television, released several years ago, even revealed that young soldiers' employment contracts are so long and complicated, that they can change in a way that further restricts the soldier's ability to bring lawsuits against commanding officers, without the enlistee even noticing.
     If a girl turns 18, and joins the military, and she doesn't know this information, then wouldn't it be appropriate to describe military recruiters as child traffickers? Can a girl who enlists in the military shortly after turning 18, really be said to give fully informed consent to work in a profession that could potentially cause her to be dead before she becomes 19 or 20? I think not.
     You can read the following articles to see how victims of sexual assault are treated when they come forward, at the following links:


     A child who is taught to be aggressive by the state, will either fit easily into positions of authority and control, or they will start on the path towards lives of violent crime.
     And for the pedophile elite, both of these outcomes are desirable. The strong leader helps future children submit (despite the degradation involved, as Wilhelm Reich explains in Mass Psychology and Fascism), while the violent criminal youth can be trafficked from one prison to another, and abused by guards with little recourse.
     Americans are absolutely kidding themselves if they allow themselves to believe that we have anything other than a Nazi-inspired fascist system designed to separate children from their parents, make everyone defenseless, fill children's minds with authoritarian propaganda, desensitize them to grooming and sexually objectifying messages, bring back child labor, and keep child marriage and child rape legal (especially for the elite).
     If you've never heard of "Strawman Theory", or heard Jordan Maxwell explain how your child is a debt slave in the context of maritime law, these two videos might help you understand what is going on, and how deep in the system of English Common Law this legalized child ownership (slavery) is entrenched:

     And how are all the Social Security numbers compiled, and how is the information collected in the U.S. Census organized? Through the help of computer systems designed with the same purpose as the I.B.M. punch-card tabulating machines that kept tabs on Jewish-Germans and other so-called “inferior races”.
     You can learn more about I.B.M.'s role in providing the Nazi regime with the technology they needed to collect the information necessary to begin their attempt to mass-exterminate the Jews of Europe, by reading the book I.B.M. and the Holocaust by Edwin Black:

     I am refusing to participate in the 2020 U.S. Census, for this reason, and also because the secondary purpose of the Census - ensuring fair taxation and spending across the states - is not being respected.
     [Note: The primary purpose is to apportion Congress equally, which is also not being done adequately, due to the over-representation of the low-population at-large district which is comprised of the entire State of Montana, and other low-population states which have only one congressman]


     All of this should make it abundantly clear that our government, and the businesses who want our money and our labor (most of which receive funds and supports from government that are paid for by the taxpayer), care more that you are using the U.S. Dollar and participating in the Social Security system, than whether you are abusing your child, and than they care about protecting your child's innocence and right to be free from physical and sexual abuse.
     They don't care that dollars are covered in trace amounts of cocaine, and toxic ink (because they contain B.P.A. also known as Bisphenol-A). They don't care that the dollar is basically backed by weapons sales, and wars for oil, because political commentators have said that the “petrodollar” and the “weapondollar” are the real currency of the United States. And it's true; the chief export of the District of Columbia is armaments. The item most commonly exported from an area, is one of the most important indicators of what is backing its government's health and its money.
     The people at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security slavery system, the child protective services, and the bar associations, don't care about that.

     They just want to trap your children and grandchildren in the Social Security Ponzi scheme, to coerce you into obeying the law in order to keep seeing your children.




I have always felt that this cartoon is a perfect metaphor for how the Social Security system works



     They just want to keep expanding the number of government programs that could traffic your child, and expanding the number of laws that lawyers could represent you after breaking. And they want to track your every move and your every purchase.
     Why do you think every dollar has a serial number on it? Yes, in case it gets counterfeited or stolen; but have you noticed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act signs at the bank? You know, the bank that you theoretically choose to bank with, in a private transaction? Do you really think that the bank is not assuming that you consent to have the list of bills you possess, sent to the Treasury Department and the Department of Homeland Security?
     They want you to sacrifice your child to Mammon. The “mon” in “money” comes from the “mon” in Mammon, a word that is synonymous with wealth, and with confidence and trust and power that come through wealth. “Mammon” is Hebrew for “money”. “Mammon” likely also means “profit”.
     Although Mammon is not the name of a god, the word "Mammon" took on the characteristics of a god, when reflected on by Christian writers in the middle of the second millennium (namely John Milton). This, in part, owes to the content of Matthew 6:24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:24), in which Jesus urges people to love God, not money. Mammon has taken on the qualities of a god, in part owing to how many people have rejected faith in God in order to get money, and to how many people have fallen for the idea that you can get money if you pray to the right god and donate to the right church.
     Since the state creates the money, the state's favorite banks (the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs) get all the trust (or credit). The state wants to be the new church, and the new god.


     The people who run the capitalist state want to track, traffic, and get nude images of your child, whether you think it's fascistic or Naziesque or not, and whether the child is Jewish or not.
     I saw Orthodox Jewish children being photographed against their will and sniffed by dogs. This wasn't in a Holocaust documentary; it was at the Newark International Airport in early 2019. But I suppose that it should be some consolation to me that the non-Jewish children were also being sniffed by dogs and subjected to unwanted bodyscans! Did you know that Orthodox Jews don't like to be photographed?
     Anyone who wants to argue that America is not fascist, or Nazi, is deluded. If the T.S.A. is not deleting bodyscans of children like it says it is, then it likely has millions of children's images stored. But the T.S.A. goes on invading their privacy, despite the fact that it came out years ago that the T.S.A. (Transportation Security Administration) misses 19 out of every 20 bombs or weapons that come through.
     This means that the T.S.A. doesn't really protect us, and they likely have naked images of our children. If we had obeyed the Constitution, the Department of Homeland Security would have never been allowed to form, and the T.S.A. would not exist! But since most Americans associate the Constitution with slavery, few people are able to appreciate how the rights outlined in the 4th Amendment were intended to protect our freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures of our property.
     Nowadays, people submit to unwarranted seizures of property, and being ordered to dump their bags out and surrender water bottles, at places such as football games. Considering this, and that our children submit to naked scans at the airport, and that now we and our children can even be required to wear masks at all times, it's clear that the authoritarianism of our state and federal governments is becoming impossible to tolerate much longer.

     If state governors can issue orders requiring us to wear masks while we are in public, then they could theoretically issue orders requiring us to wear anything. That includes the types of patches that the Nazis forced Jews, Communists, and others to wear on their clothing before and during the Holocaust.
     It's even possible that the government could order us to wear nothing. Think I'm joking? They make you strip at the airport, don't they? And at vehicle stops too. They check in your buttcrack for drugs when you get arrested, don't they? They can subject you to multiple cavity searches, even if there is no cause to suspect that you're concealing contraband in a body cavity. A woman in Texas was once subjected to a cavity search for flicking her cigarette out of her car window. Police could easily justify such a thing by claiming that there's no reason to assume that she wasn't flicking a joint out of the window, so that could be an attempt to dispose of evidence, and that's cause to arrest.
     The police can do whatever they want. And so can school teachers, to a certain extent! And school teachers can take your clothes away too.
     In 2015, a nine-year-old Texas boy in 2nd or 3rd grade was punished by being forced to sit on a circle drawn on the floor, shirtless, alone in a cold room, dubbed a "focus room".
     Not only can school children have their right to heat taken away, they can have their actual clothing itself taken away. Here are two articles about an incident in which preschoolers at a school in East St. Louis, Illinois were forced to stand naked in a closet as "punishment":
     http://www.kmov.com/news/preschool-children-in-east-st-louis-were-forced-to-stand/article_5c32fc2e-49c6-11e9-878d-1733c943eaf9.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
     http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/03/19/police-preschoolers-forced-to-stand-naked-closet-punishment/?fbclid=IwAR1dIKFEJmx0VStr3iPal3PkBJiW3qU-rGwslyOYC3ycYcbHSSFoNg-ZCG4
     Not only is this another case of government employees depriving children of clothing, it's an example of child endangerment and reckless child sexualization. It's even possible that the teachers involved were trying to get the children to engage in sexual acts with each other.
     This is all part of a fascist mission to deprive children of their basic needs, in the absence of their parents, in order to make children look insane by describing their reaction as disrespectful. Punishing children by depriving them of basic needs like food, heat, and clothing should never be acceptable, but for some reason it is in our school system.


     So they can order us to wear masks, potentially order us to wear patches, and they can take our children's clothing away after they use school buses to traffic them out of our sight. We should be asking ourselves now: "If they can do this, then what can't they do?".
     We're not done here, though. Several producers of women's undergarments have "charitably" decided to re-purpose their production towards the production of face masks, in the wake of the Coronavirus / Covid-19 / SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. One such producer is Urban Outfitters (http://footwearnews.com/2020/focus/womens/urban-outffiters-face-masks-1203019046/).
     So if governors can tell us to wear masks on our faces, and enough masks are made by women's underwear producers, then it's possible that a lot of us are being expected to abide by the governor's orders, by placing fabric originally intended to be part of women's underwear, over our faces, in public.
     Did you think it was a coincidence that Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois still has public mask orders in effect, meanwhile his cousin Tom Pritzker has been revealed in New York court case filings to have been associated with Jeffrey Epstein? The governor is making us wear women's panties on our faces in order to distract us from his pedophile brother's friendship with the most notorious child trafficker of the last 30 years.
     Don't believe me? One of the companies that has so generously volunteered to re-purpose their production towards masks, is American Apparel. American Apparel's C.E.O. is Dov Charney, who has been accused of sexually harassing employees, and even masturbating during a job interview with a prospective female hire. Charney was also sued by Woody Allen for using Allen's image without permission; Charney admits to being a fan of Allen. Additionally, American Apparel has been criticized for using very young adult female models. Furthermore, I personally saw the American Apparel store in Madison, Wisconsin display a sign featuring a shirtless Asian boy who seemed to be about eight years old.
     I don't use the word "cuck" often, nor lightly. But Dov Charney is a pedophile, and Illinois's cousin-of-a-pedophile governor is cucking us by making us wear women's underwear on our faces that was manufactured by a pedophile's company.
     Moreover, fashion production is plagued with problems like prison labor and child labor, so the issues with Charney's activities probably don't end there.
     Furthermore, Victoria's Secret had a prison labor scandal, and their C.E.O. Leslie Wexner was one of Epstein's top two or three lifetime sources of revenue. Epstein attended Victoria's Secret fashion shows. Epstein's brother Mark, and Jean-Luc Brunel (who provided him with girls who were way underage), were in fashion as well.
     The government helps pedophiles redeem themselves after sexual harassment lawsuits. The government assisted Jeffrey Epstein by bailing out Bear Stearns, and now it is bailing out Dov Charney by setting him up with an opportunity to make needed face-masks in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis.
     The government makes us wear underwear on our faces, and then the government and its schools find ways to excuse taking our clothing away. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".


     By this point in the article, if you're not convinced that our government is fascist - and that it operates with a reckless disregard for the rights of children - then I have another story to tell.
     In 2006, I was camping in the Ozarks in Arkansas, and I met a young man who said that his father was in the military. He was posted as a sniper, to protect the entrance of a military base. He was under strict orders to shoot anyone who runs towards the entrance. One day, a colonel or a general came to the base with his young daughter, and the daughter rushed towards the entrance happily, having no idea of the defensive importance of the location. The sniper shot the girl because failing to do so could have gotten him court-marshaled. But he was court-marshaled anyway! And he was punished for his crime.
     Punishing the sniper was certainly the morally correct thing to do, but the case could be made that the sniper was legally in the right. But that doesn't matter, if you understand that the purpose of the rule of law is to protect our freedoms; it is not to adhere to the law so closely that nobody is ever allowed to conscientiously object to the orders they are given. The freedom to do so has prevented wars. We cannot have peace, nor freedom, if there is too much order, and if we never given a reasonable and efficient avenue to question orders.
     My point in bringing all of this up, though, is simply that American troops can theoretically be ordered to shoot at American children on American soil, in addition to children overseas.

     We must stand up against these slave-masters; the rapist United States Armed Forces and Transportation Security Administration, the usurious Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security slavery system and the child protective services, and the bar associations, and take our children (and young women) back so that we can defend them and teach them to be self-sufficient.


     People used to call Texas-based radio host Alex Jones "crazy" and "a conspiracy theorist" when he would say, back in the early 2010s, that Child Protective Services abducts and sexually molests children. Despite all the evidence that Jones was right about that, people still call him those things!
     Jones once said that people used to see him in traffic in Austin, and harass him for his views and claims. Jones claims that once, someone mocked him at a red light, and Jones shouted back, "You work for C.P.S., don't you?". Jones says the person stopped talking and looked scared, as if they'd been caught.
      Once, in the early 2010s, while on a city bus in Madison, Wisconsin, I personally overheard a white couple in their 20s behind me, talking about how the government had taken their kids out of their custody because the parents smoked marijuana. It is increasingly seeming like there are places in our country where you are more or less free to smoke marijuana, and get adequate mental health treatment, but they come at a cost: you have to give up your children, and your right to possess firearms.
     Licensed medical professions are even allowed, in some states, to ask patients whether there are any guns in the home (http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2016/05/11/pediatrician-guns-plea). This is supposedly done to benefit the health of the child. Public health and public safety are always the excuses for intrusions of privacy and human rights deprivations.


     One particularly horrifying case of government-ordered trafficking and sexualizing children, occurred just before this article you're reading was published. In late August 2020, a campaign began growing, to bring attention to the fact that a little girl in Texas, named Sophie, is legally required by Texas courts to be given up to her mother and abusive boyfriend. The girl claims that her mother's boyfriend touches her vagina while her mother watches.
     Watch this video to learn more about Sophie's situation (but be warned that the content of the video is disturbing, as it depicts physical harm against a child, and the girl's grandmother denying the girl's claims to her face):
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ww1HIzOQ4A&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR28K8_nuRo8INT4Xog5W_maRs9B3uFaadTYr7v9onEd1H19VSZ_UFvE-Bo


     Perhaps just as horrifying as the abuse that this helpless young girl has been forced to endure by the courts and her family, is the fact that in California, several years ago, a female judge told a younger female attorney that she was trying to get away with applying foster care laws to biological family custody situations improperly.
     If attorneys are not stopped from using arguments intended to excuse government taking foster children into government custody, to excuse taking our biological children into their custody, then we will lose sight of the notion that our children our not government property. They're not anyone's property; they're ours to protect and defend, but they are not literally our property to order around (except to protect them from their own bad decisions, from harm, and from other children).
     But of course, adults deserve less consideration, in terms of help from others, because they can make wise decisions and protect themselves more easily than children can. Not that you'd notice, if you look at the way our government treats us.


     There is an unseen cost to the convenience of money. Nothing we've been told about the dollar, the Social Security system, Child Protective Services, the T.S.A., or the public mask order, makes us any safer, nor any healthier. Even if it did, that would not be an excuse to violate the freedoms of law-abiding adults whom have not been accused of anything with reasonable cause.
     The "porn or grope" "choice" we are "given" at airport security, and the women's underwear material on our faces, ought to make it clear that the names of the games are public humiliation and sexual humiliation.
     We are walking around wearing, in part, what the government tells us to wear. Nobody can look cool, or easily make friends, or meet potential mates, or even be affectionate, given the public mask order, and the six-foot "social distancing" rule (which, to me, sounds suspiciously like "social conditioning").
     They can humiliate us by telling us what to wear, and they can humiliate us by forcing us to turn our children over to our ex-spouses even when we know they are letting people sexually abuse the child.


     Don't turn a blind eye towards the video of Joe Biden pinching a young girl's nipple live on C-SPAN on January 3rd, 2015. Don't turn a blind eye towards the allegations that Donald Trump raped Maria Farmer and a 13-year-old former Jane Doe who is now being called Katie Johnson.
     We see Biden molesting kids with our own eyes, and we have no way to stop this child pornography from being broadcast on our airwaves. We see Biden's nine sexual harassment and abuse accusers, and Trump's twenty-nine accusers. We are deluded if we ignore this, or assume that it's the best we can do. Other people are running for president - named Jo Jorgensen, Howie Hawkins, Rocky de la Fuente, and others - and they have not been accused of sexual impropriety by anybody.
     We must elect a president who actually cares about children, and understands the complexity of the child sex trafficking and other human trafficking problems.

     And we must not delude ourselves into thinking that accused Hollywood pedophiles are innocent just because they issue denials, just as we must not think that Teen Moms does nothing to sexualize teenagers too early.
     After all, Chrissy Teigen admitted on Twitter that she likes to watch teenagers giving birth when she is bored:


     She also admitted to being turned on by little girls on Toddlers and Tiaras doing the splits in their underwear:




     There appears to be no real evidence connecting Chrissy Teigen to Jeffrey Epstein, although that is disputed among people researching the topic. However, it's clear from these tweets that Teigen is looking at young girls in an inappropriate manner.


     All of this stands to reason that we are being farmed as slaves by our government, our wives treated as brood mares, and we are separated from our children. We are all branded through forced memorization of our Social Security number. We are made to consider giving our children up for the sake of safety, or health, or freedom, or order, or financial stability of ourselves or the child.
     Don't let yourself think that a group of people will easily give their children up. A demoralized, fractured, beleaguered people, will give their children up much more easily than if their lives were not plagued by division, war, and examples of amoral corruption coming from positions of trust and authority.
     Rabbi Chaim Rumkowski got his people to give up their children.
     http://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/give-me-your-children-voices-from-the-lodz-ghetto


     Fortunately though, for Americans today, it is not too late to avoid that fate. All we have to do is stop telling our children to get into an unmarked van with a strange man who refuses to wear a badge or identify himself, because he might be a police officer.
     If police officers are allowed to inject arrestees with ketamine "to calm them down", and tase them, then they are free to use potentially deadly weapons and pretend there's no chance of the person dying.
     So if the police can drug us and kidnap us into unmarked vans, then why do we keep telling our kids that the purpose of the police is to protect us from criminals such as kidnappers? The police are kidnappers!
     How did the conservative Christian right go from hating kidnappers and our blowjob-receiving president in the 1990s, to promoting legal kidnapping by the government while they pretend to want to "Drain the Swamp" when it comes to getting kidnappers out of government!? It seems that some elements of the right only want to fire government employees who molest kids, if those employees are liberals or work in law offices, but not if they're cops or soldiers.

     It's not hard to figure out why that is, if you notice how often right-wingers tell young radicals, "Stop acting immature", "stop acting like a baby", and even "Do you need me to change your diapers?" This coarse infantilization of one's political rivals, is not only disgusting and pointless in terms of promoting productive political rhetoric, it is a form of pedophile grooming.
     Old men should not tell young people to "kiss a police officer's ass" to get away with a minor infraction; this encourages lawlessness and a person who does it could find themselves legally raped by a police officer. [Here's what I mean by "legally raped by a police officer": http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/07/police-officers-can-legally-rape-and.html]
     If I had a daughter, I would rather shoot myself than tell her to "kiss a cop's ass" to get off with a warning. It doesn't matter that the advice is meant figuratively; so was the advice to "sort of prostitute yourself in order to get a job". This advice has real-world, literal consequences; people get sexually harassed and even assaulted while at work.
     That is why the workplace is no place for our children. That is why our children must not be forced to pass rites of adulthood too early.
     They are not supposed to be too free, nor too sexual, nor too hard-working, while they're too young. They're supposed to be children. And, despite the apparent views of Netflix (which is about to release a French film called Cuties that arguably sexualizes 11-year-old girls), "letting kids be kids" certainly does not mean "making kids grow up too early".


     Children, slaves, and criminal suspects in custody (and people who reasonably believe themselves to be in police custody), do not have the ability to give fully informed consent to physical harm and sexual contact. We must not turn our children into slaves; not to government programs, not to the police, not to bosses, not to child molesting parents and foster parents. Not to anyone.
     We tell our children to work for free, through internships or volunteering, by rationalizing that it will get them "exposure"; that it will expose them to opportunities to work for pay in the future. And we rationalize that getting kids into the workplace earlier will put them in a position to provide for themselves, pay into the system, and begin paying taxes early, to support the Major Fiscal Exposure which our federal government has planned to spend with the money they haven't earned yet.
     Well, you can die from exposure.
     The cost of giving a child "exposure" by subjecting them to work too early, could be that they are exposed to unwanted flirting, sexual harassment, or even being raped to death (as in the case of Leo Frank and Mary Phagan) at the workplace.
     Ending child labor won't be associated with communism (as a dirty word) for much longer; not when people realize that banning child labor in full, would have necessarily resulted in banning child prostitution - and the sexual harassment and objectification of children in the workplace - a long time ago.







     To read more of my thoughts about why Social Security is a slavery system and a caste system, read the following article:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/12/on-china-class-and-caste-social-credit.html


   




Written on September 2nd and 3rd, 2020

 Originally published incomplete on September 2nd, 2020
Edited and expanded on September 3rd, 4th, 15th, and 30th, 2020

 The title of the article has been changed several times since its original publication.

at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

List of People Who Might Run for President as a Democrat or a Republican in 2028

      The following is a list of people who appear to be the most likely prominent political figures who may declare an intent to form a cam...