Showing posts with label U.S. politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. politics. Show all posts

Monday, February 22, 2021

Government-Involved Child Sexual Abuse Scandals: Which Ones Are the Easiest to Prove?

      The infographic below was created in order to display the information I collected in my February 2021 article "Twenty-Three Real Child Sex Abuse and Trafficking Scandals That Indisputably Point to Government Complicity".
     That article can be read at the link below.

     Since many of the scandals mentioned in that article involved multiple people, the set of scandals referenced in the infographic has been expanded from twenty-three to thirty-eight.
     I have constructed a five-tier system, to sort the clearest examples of complicity in child trafficking and child sexual abuse (or leniency on child traffickers) by agencies or officials of government.










Click, and open in new tab or window,
and/or download, in order to see in full resolution





Created and Published on February 22nd, 2021

Expanded on April 23rd, 2021


The Government Does Not Yet Have the Authority to Give You What You Want

     The article below was written as a reaction to the Joe Biden Administration failing to deliver the $1400 checks, and the $15 minimum wage, that it appeared to have promised during the election.





     The mainstream media and the college law professors don't know or care how the law actually works.
The federal government does not have the power to give raises to people whom it does not employ.
     Raising the minimum wage to $15 will not help 32 million workers, as its proponents claim it will. It will only help 0.2% of the non-tipped workforce. That raise would only help people who already work for the federal government, and earn below $15 per hour.

     The government does not have the power or the authority to do the things you want it to do.
     Joe Biden is a constitutionalist. He does not care that people want a $15 minimum wage, and he doesn't want to tell you that the reason he's not giving it to you, is because it's unconstitutional. He certainly doesn't want you to learn how to use the amendment process to allow the federal government to do what you want it to do.

     Americans need voter education and constitutional education badly. Study the 9th and 10th Amendments, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (the Enumerated Powers), and how the Constitution is amended. This will help you understand which duties are supposed to be held by the national government, and which are supposed to be held by the state and local governments, and the people.
     American voters should stop blaming only Republicans for denying them what they want. It is not only the Republican Party legislators, but also the Constitution - and President Biden - who don't want people to get the changes to the law which they are demanding.
     We can argue all day long about what kind of laws we should have, and which duties belong in the hands of the national or state governments, all day long. But the fact remains: the Constitution is the law, and it is a limitation upon what kinds of laws may exist.
     Amending Article I Section 8, to allow or require the national government to exclusively regulate certain fields of law and policies, is the only way to achieve things like a national minimum wage increase that resembles what progressives are asking for. It is the only way to achieve a minimum wage increase, a federal jobs guarantee, or any sort of mass debt forgiveness program, in a way that is not unconstitutional.
     Enshrining reforms in the Constitution, with proper amendment, is the only way to shield those policies from easy tampering; whether by majorities, minorities, governors, presidential vetoes and signing statements, or activist judges. We must cease pursuing temporary fixes to our numerous economic and political problems, and instead resolve to pursue permanent forms of meaningful, revolutionary amounts of change.

     This country was founded on democratic-republicanism, but also on liberal-conservatism. We have to conserve the progress and freedom that we have achieved. We must consider social republicanism - specifically enshrining the people's human rights into the document by which the people's republic is constituted - in order to specifically enumerate more of our rights.
     We can, and must, do this, without suggesting that the mere appearance of these rights in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean that those are our only rights. Moreover, the mere appearance of a subject in the Constitution does not necessarily connote that the national government retains the exclusive right to legislate upon that manner.
     Through education about the Ninth Amendment, the separation of powers, and natural rights which originate from the virtue of our humanity, we can overcome the perceived conflict between (positive) rights and (negative) freedoms.

     Once we realize that we are parts of the Earth - breathing its air, drinking its water, and being made of food that grew out of the ground - we assert our right to hunt, gather, forage, farm, or glean whatever we may need, in order to survive.
     We have a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to survive, since if we exercise our right to refuse to use the state's money, then we constantly find ourselves on other people's property, in order to obtain the food and water we need. To say that a person has a right to eat, does not necessarily impose an obligation upon someone else to provide him with that food. It is a mere recognition that we cannot survive without eating, drinking, breathing, etc..
     We do not need private property in the means of production, money, or licensed work in order to survive. We need to do enough labor as it takes to acquire what we need to survive, and perform as much action as is necessary to assert our freedom and independence. But we will not die if we run out of money, or ability to solely own a factory or workplace, in the same way that we will die if we run out of food, water, and air.
     Shelter and medicine are gray areas, but it is worth noting that the value of these things are kept artificially high through zoning laws, construction laws, high costs of building permits, medical patent laws, unnecessary sales taxes, and professional licensing laws, and could thus be much less expensive, and therefore require less work in order to purchase.
     There is no reason why we cannot recognize human rights, and human needs, without endorsing the use of a centralized, violent state apparatus to "give" us (or recognize) those rights. Such apparati have rarely done so.
     We must therefore withdraw our trust and support - and also our consent - from the government, and from its officials and employees. Being that governments are instituted to preserve men's freedom, a government which lacks the consent of the governed is not legitimate.

     To say "the time to trust government is over" is to suggest that it was ever wise to trust government. All government which operates on the statist model - a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory - exists in order to legitimize the violence used by its employees, and to legalize their crimes.
     The state exists to criminalize the violence of its subjects, and to legalize the violence of its officials. The state establishes a border within which the government has an exclusive right to inflict politically motivated initimidation - terror, that is - upon a populace, and to give them nowhere to turn for defense or redress of their grievances, except for that very same aggressive state.

    The state is a self-legitimizing terrorist entity.
     We cannot trust the government to tell us the truth about what the law is, nor about how it works. Nor can we trust the government to allow us the ability to hunt, forage, glean, homestead, etc., enough to survive, without resorting to begging the government's help. Why would government help us become independent? It doesn't benefit the government at all to help us acquire a home as property, in a way which the government can't simply take away from us, after charging us an inordinate amount of property taxes.
     We can't even trust the government to deliver on its "promise" of $1400 checks. If the government would yank a $1400 check out of your hand, then why wouldn't it collude with universities to make you hate the very same document (the Constitution) which you could easily amend in order to achieve legal reforms that could result in you having more freedom, opportunity, and prosperity?
     There's no reason to hate the Constitution, and "throw the baby out with the bath water" in terms of ditching tools that could be used to limit government and separate powers, just because the Constitution still allows involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime (now referred to as "the new slavery" in the prisons).
     The Thirteenth Amendment is amended - and violence, secrecy, and torture are drastically reduced in prisons - the sooner people will no longer be able to rightfully claim that the Constitution allows slavery to continue to exist. It certainly does exist now; not only the outright chattel slavery,  forced labor, and sex slavery which exists in the prisons, but also a general state of political slavery (and wage and debt slavery) which exists in the so-called "free" population as well.


     Given that we have a slave society, why should we trust the government to afford us either freedom or "rights" (however we define that term)? Why trust a corrupt government more, when we know it can't do what we want it to, and wouldn't do those things even if it had the rightful authority?
     
It's time to stop lying to ourselves. We must engage in mutual aid, direct action, charitable acts, voluntary association, voluntary cooperation, and transparent self-governance of firms. That is the only way to bring production and innovation back to the United States, which the government insists on either penalizing and deterring through inordinate tax rates, or else only promoting for the sake of the financial benefit of the people whose corrupt business interests run the government.

     
     We can use the Constitution to limit government and abolish slavery, or we can resort to anarchy to abolish government and slavery. Until our governments stop lying to us, neither alternative should be taken off of the table.
     But additionally, if the government insists upon continuing to lie - and to mislead us about the Constitution's meaning, and brainwash us against what is good about that document, and about limited government - then anarchy will look like a rational choice in comparison to even the most permanent and meaningful reform.
     That's because such reform will continue to look impossible, because the majority of Americans will have no idea how to formally achieve those reforms through law in a way that cannot be easily tampered with.




     I have previously commented on the topics mentioned above; in three articles and three videos. Those posts are linked below.
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/half-of-federal-laws-do-not-apply-to.html
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/letter-to-political-science-professor.html
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/links-to-all-of-my-videos-about.html




Written and Published on February 22nd, 2021

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

How Committed is the Green Party to the Principle of Decentralization?

     The purpose of this article is to determine on which policy topics the Green Party and its supporters are most committed to decentralization. Decentralization is one of the Green Party's Ten Key Values.
     gp.org/four_pillars_ten_key_values

     I put this article together after the party's last presidential nominee, Howie Hawkins, ran on a platform that called for increased centralization of the regulation of energy and transportation affairs into the hands of the national government.
     This platform prompted me to ask, "If Hawkins is leading the party to support more centralization on energy and transportation, then on which other issues is the Green Party still whole-heartedly committed to decentralization?"

     I have sorted thirty-one major topics in politics, into seven categories: Centralize More, Keep Centralized, Mostly Centralized, Promote a Mix (...), Mostly Decentralize, Keep Decentralized, and Decentralize More.


[Policy Topics Which Most of the Green Party Wants to] Centralize More
- State Department / diplomacy
     (centralize through growing and properly funding, and demilitarize by transforming into a Department of Peace)
- Interstate regulation of commerce
- Energy, and provision of public utilities
     (centralize, but eliminate influence of businesses, lobbyists, and monopolies)
- Transportation
     (centralize, but streamline, and eliminate business & lobbyist influence)
- Campaign finance reform
     (centralize, but streamline, and eliminate business & lobbyist influence)
- Labor Department
     (centralize in order to create a jobs guarantee)
- Justice Department & the Attorney General, incl. courts

[...] Keep Centralized
- International trade, including tariffs
- Establishing uniform rule of naturalization of immigrants

Mostly Centralize
- Elections
     (cooperative or corporative federalism; national government should supervise more)
- State public worker benefits
     (increase national supervision of public sector employees' affairs, benefits, and bargaining)

Promote a Mix of Centralization and Decentralization, inc through Cooperative or Triple Federalism
- Military / Department of Defense / Pentagon / common defense
     (centralize its administration, but reduce its use, and demilitarize it, while decentralizing public defense)
- Social Security / retirement
     (centralize by growing S.S. into Social Security for All,
i.e., a U.B.I. to every American, which would decentralize the distribution of U.S. Dollars)

- Agriculture
     (cooperative or triple federalism, but eliminate business & lobbyist influence)
- Education
     (cooperative or triple federalism, but eliminate business & lobbyist influence)
- Child welfare
     (cooperative or triple federalism)

- Health
     (cooperative or triple federalism, but eliminate business & lobbyist influence)
- Housing & Urban Development
     (cooperative or triple federalism, but eliminate business & lobbyist influence)
- Taxation
     (both states and federal government should have taxation power)


Mostly Decentralize
- Treasury
     (keep Treasury Dept., but decentralize through a UBI)
- Veterans' Affairs
     (decentralize, or abolish, or make unnecessary by putting its activities under Defense Dept. &/or H.H.S.)
- Native American affairs
     (localize through increasing tribal autonomy)
- Patents / intellectual property
     (keep administration centralized, but reduce durations)
- Gun control laws

- The internet
     (centralize regulation as a public utility in order to foster a decentralized or polycentric creative / collaborative commons)


Keep Decentralized or Balanced

- Law enforcement and policing, prisons and jails

Decentralize More
- Interior Dept. / land management
     (decentralize to the bioregions)
- E.P.A. / environment & ecology
     (decentralize to the bioregions)
- Homeland Security
     (decentralize, shrink, and abolish)
- Sanctuary cities and sanctuary states
- Mutual aid, direct action. and charity




Click, and open in new tab or window,
and/or download, to see in full resolution







Written and published on February 9th, 2021
Edited, and Image Added, on February 10th, 2021

Monday, February 8, 2021

Achieving Stability During a Budget Deficit: Four Pillars of Fiscal Solvency

     The diagram below shows that there are four things Congress can do to attempt to solve a budget deficit. These are four tools that Congress can use to fill the gap between how much tax revenue the government is taking in during a given year, and the full cost of the annual budget.


     These four tools are: 1) Increase taxes; 2) Increase borrowing; 3) Reduce spending; and 4) Inflate (or "print money").



Note: The federal government can use all four tools,
but the state governments can only increase taxes,
increase borrowing, and reduce spending.
State governments do not have the power to inflate the currency.


     I have depicted the "reduce spending" pillar broken, because the overall federal government budget continues to increase every year, meaning that this tool isn't being used (except on the micro level). 
      This can only mean overreliance on increasing taxes and borrowing, and on printing money.
     Through understanding the graphic above, we can see how to overcome that overreliance. Making proper use of the "reduce spending" tool, will allow Congress to increase taxes and borrowing less than it was planning to increase them. It will also allow Congress to get by without resorting to inflating the currency (and thus devaluing the dollar) as much as it was planning to inflate.


     The federal government's budget deficit from the year 2020 was a whopping $3.1 trillion; that is, the federal government took in $3.1 trillion less in tax revenue, than it spent on its programs and projects.
     Let's round that $3.1 trillion off to $3.2 trillion (the nearest multiple of $800 billion) to make things simpler. Let's also assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we want Congress to rely on each one of its four tools, in equal dollar amounts.
     This would mean setting a baseline of 25% reliance each - or just under $800 billion each, considering the current deficit - in order to balance the budget, and make revenues and spending meet.


     Thus, by simply dividing the current (or future) deficit by four, we know what Congress should do:

     1. Increase tax revenues in a manner which will result in the raising of an additional $800 billion this year.
     2. Borrow $800 billion more this year than the federal government did last year.
     3. Reduce spending by $800 billion as compared to last year.
     4. Inflate by $800 billion (i.e., announce a new "Quantitative Easing" program, and authorize the Federal Reserve Bank to purchase $800 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds).



     This may not be a popular set of proposals, but based on the severe deficit and debt problems, and the statistics and the number of tools available, we can at least conclude that these proposals constitute a logical, sensible, pragmatic, "moderate" position on the matter.
     In my opinion, politics would probably be a lot simpler if this set of proposals were viewed as the baseline or "centrist" position, and if the political parties were split along the lines of the degree to which a politician or party advocated overreliance or under-reliance on any particular one of the tools.
     The importance of inflation and borrowing is under-emphasized in the media. Political propaganda tells us that Democrats want to spend more money, while Republicans want to spend less. The truth is that neither major party is seriously considering the severe budget measures which it will require to get us out of the huge hole in which we find ourselves (nearly $28 trillion in debt).


     It should be noted that the four-step formula which I have articulated above, is only good for filling the gap between spending and revenue, and getting rid of the deficit.
     Actually paying off the debt will require achieving a budget surplus for many years in a row, and using that money to reimburse the nations and bondholders who loaned the government those funds.
     Fortunately, though, the same tools can be used to achieve a surplus, which can be used to fill-in the deficit. I have recommended paying-off $1 trillion dollars a year, as soon as a $1 trillion annual surplus can be achieved.


     To fill a $3.2 trillion hole in the federal government's budget, and generate a $1 trillion annual surplus, simply add one-fourth of one trillion dollars ($250 billion) to the target amount assigned to each one of the four tools.

     1. Increase tax revenues in a manner which will result in the raising of an additional $1.05 trillion this year.
     2. Borrow $1.05 trillion more this year than the federal government did last year.
     3. Reduce spending by $1.05 trillion as compared to last year.
     4. Inflate by $1.05 trillion (i.e., announce a new "Quantitative Easing" program, and authorize the Federal Reserve Bank to purchase $1.05 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds).


     It is my hope that this diagram and article will inspire a new wave of debate regarding how the government should best attempt to balance the budget, and restore fiscal solvency to our tax base and to our currency.

    



Written and published on February 9th, 2021

Inspired by content included in a congressional affairs class taught by
University of Wisconsin at Madison professor David T. Canon
between 2005 and 2009

Opinion: Israelis Probably Lying About Making Contact with Extraterrestrials

Table of Contents


1. Israel and Aliens
2. Israel Needs Good Publicity
3. Americans Turned a Blind Eye to Child Abuse in the 1990s
4. Adaptive Information Processing (A.I.P.) and Trauma
5. The X-Files Substituted Alien Abduction for Child Abduction
6. John Podesta Believes in Aliens
7. Steven Spielberg's E.T. is a Pedophile Grooming Film
8. Disclaimer: Jews vs. Israel
9. Conclusion



Content


1. Israel and Aliens

      On February 1st, 2021, Scientific American published an article titled “Astronomer Avi Loeb Says Aliens Have Visited, and He's Not Kidding”. Avi Loeb is an American-Israeli scientists. He bases his claim that aliens have made contact with human beings, on the idea that the pancake-like shape of the object 'Oumuamua is so odd that it could not be naturally occurring.

     You can read more about Avi Loeb's claims at the following links:

scientificamerican.com/article/astronomer-avi-loeb-says-aliens-have-visited-and-hes-not-kidding1/?fbclid=IwAR1x8-19WOMmYnvNYBTvV87n6PjNSeFQTByJkdnAlyuj3U8T5bfYU8xKcyg

http://www.amazon.com/Extraterrestrial-First-Intelligent-Beyond-Earth/dp/0358278147


     Two months prior to the publication of that article – on December 10th, 2021 – the Times of Israel published an article titled “Israeli space chief says aliens may well exist, but they haven't met humans”.

     The Times reported that Israel's space chief, Isaac Ben Israel, said that aliens exist. This came in response to the claims of retired Israeli “space pioneer” Haim Eshed, that aliens “visited Earth” and “made deals with people”. According to Eshed, Israel has had contact with a “Galactic Federation” for some time now, but the rest of humanity is not yet ready for contact with aliens.


     I, for one, am not buying any of this, however.

     Don't get me wrong; I think it's totally possible that aliens exist, given the size of the universe, particularly the parts of it which humanity has not yet explored (i.e., the vast majority of it). But I wouldn't say “aliens exist” with the confidence with which Isaac Ben Israel has said so. I have no proof, nor any evidence.

     A few notes before proceeding: 1) Not all so-called “U.F.O.s” contain aliens or extraterrestrial beings. 2) U.F.O.s are real, but the belief in U.F.O.s does not necessarily mean a belief in aliens. 3) “U.F.O.” stands for “Unidentified Flying Object”. 4) The fact that there have been objects labeled “U.F.O.s”, means that U.F.O.s undoubtedly exist, but does not necessarily prove that aliens exist. Hopefully no further explanation should be necessary.

     U.F.O.s exist. And aliens may well exist. But the Israelis need to show us more proof. All we have to go on, is bare assertion, and a pancake-shaped asteroid.


     The debate between Isaac Ben Israel and Haim Eshed reminds me of what Noam Chomsky said about the “Overton Window”, the window of acceptable debate.

     Chomsky said that people who want to restrict free speech and restrict debate, create the illusion of free speech, by only allowing debate within a narrow range (or window) of acceptability, but promoting lively debate within that range.

     The publicity which Ben Israel and Eshed received for their views on alien contact, has effectively restricted the debate, so that the only acceptable positions are “We've definitely made contact, and the Israeli space chief said so” and “We've definitely made contact, but don't tell people outside of Israel about it.”

     This narrow range of acceptable viewpoints risks inculcating people into worship and blind obedience of government, and possibly also Israeli or Jewish superiority. [Note: This is not to say that all Jewish people are Jewish supremacists! I am saying the Israeli government takes advantage of the Jewish religion in order to centralize its power.]

     The people of Israel, and the world over, should be cautious about believing what the Israelis say at face value.



2. Israel Needs Good Publicity

     The Israelis are, of course, in a monumental amount of trouble at the moment.

     Ghislaine Maxwell - a possible asset of the M.O.S.S.A.D. (the Israeli equivalent of the C.I.A., the foreign surveillance apparatus) - is in U.S. custody, and faces decades in prison. This, after her ex-boyfriend and protector Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly murdered in his prison cell, amid much debate regarding how it was done, who could have done it, and even whether he was smuggled out and replaced with a body double.

     Maxwell's father, for those who don't know, was an Israeli super-spy who died mysteriously on a yacht named for his daughter, after stealing a highly valuable prosecutorial software called PROMIS and providing it to Israel and other actors. More and more Americans are discovering this fact every day, as well as the fact that Harvey Weinstein hired Israeli hitmen from an organization called Black Cube to stalk women whom he thought were going to rat him out for sexual abuse (which was exposed by Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker and his book Catch and Kill).

     The Israelis need a distraction from Epstein, Maxwell, Weinstein and Black Cube, Alan Dershowitz (who defended Epstein, and Israeli spies involved in nuclear secrets theft and 9/11), The Zionist Bronfman family's funding of the NXIVM Hollywood sex cult, and the growing sentiment against Israel's occupation of Palestine and against the pro-Israel lobby in America.

     So why not aliens?


     I believe that we have not made contact with aliens. I believe that the Israelis are lying on purpose.

     I suspect that any Israeli who says with confidence that we have made contact, is making it up in order to promote Israel, which prides itself on its technology (for example, its microchips, and its health technology).

     In early December 2020, the Israeli nonprofit initiative SpaceIL announced that it would be attempting to send three spacecrafts to the Moon in the near future. This comes after an Israeli spacecraft crashed on the Moon in late 2019.
     I believe that these stories about having made contact with aliens, and knowing for sure that they exist, is part of a strategy to 1) cover up for Israel's many scandals; and 2) raise awareness about - and funding for - the Israeli space program and Moon missions, and for its Iron Dome missile defense shield technology (a/k/a “Star Wars”).
     Nothing would boost American donations to Israeli space companies like the possibility that the same country had made contact with aliens. One successful landing of a spacecraft on the Moon, and the Israelis will establish themselves as a space power. And getting one's foot in the door to space exploration, potentially puts Israel in a position to affect the militarization of space.




3. Americans Turned a Blind Eye to Child Abuse in the 1990s

     If you think about it, telling a child “I didn't abduct you, it was an alien abduction!” is a perfect excuse. It barely even requires changing the story. All it takes is finding a scapegoat – an alien, who doesn't exist and can't defend himself against the charge – to substitute for the real kidnapper or child abductor. It's an easy thing for a child to understand, just like “Don't tell anyone or I'll kill you – I mean the aliens will kill you.” Brainwashing complete.
     I believe that this substitution is exactly what has happened, except at a macro scale in our culture. Remember the “Satanic Panic” about ritual Satanic sexual abuse of children in daycare centers and schools in the early 1990s? After no evidence was found in the expensive McMartin preschool trial, Geraldo and other TV show hosts dropped the subject, and looked to new topics to boost ratings.
     What did they start focusing on in the mid-1990s? Sending troubled teens to boot camps on trash TV shows. Around that time, Joe Biden and his supporters were promoting teen boot camps as supposedly “less abusive alternatives to prisons”. Not every teen had that experience. You can learn more about that by researching the child abuse scandals of W.W.A.S.P.S. (World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools).
     Teen boot camps were thus a convenient way to dispose of teenagers who have probably recently been abused, by sending them to be abused by professionals. Is your kid pissed off at you because you ignore him or don't talk to him? Has he started doing drugs because he can't think of any way to cope with your abuse, or feel anything but sadness and despair? He's clearly a “troubled teen” and a “delinquent” who needs some “tough love” (without the love). Send him to a boot camp!

     What else did American media focus on next, in the mid- and late 1990s? Aliens!
     Unsolved Mysteries. X-Files. 3rd Rock from the Sun. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Contact with Jodie Foster. Independence Day. Men in Black. The Star Wars prequels. Alien movies and shows were all over the place in the 1990s, and lots of aliens with varying combinations of cuteness and ugliness abounding along with them.
     I now suspect that this all may very well have been a subtly orchestrated and convenient way to distract America and its abused children from discussing their kidnappings and trauma.
     “Rape your kid, then blame it on aliens.” Any parent who knows how to poke holes in a child's argument and claims, should be able to use that advice successfully.



4. Adaptive Information Processing (A.I.P.) and Trauma

     In the late 2000s and 2010s, I was friends with a young man in Madison, Wisconsin, who suffered from paranoid delusionary schizophrenia, for which he took medication, and was in therapy.
     After knowing him for a year or two, he told me that he believed in aliens. Specifically, he said they were “grays” (i.e., gray aliens with large heads and large, black, oval-shaped eyes).
     Several years later, he told me that his uncle had touched him inappropriately, in a sexual manner.
     The more I thought about these two admissions, the more I began to suspect that they were, in fact, the same event. I believe that my friend thought he was abducted by aliens, but was actually molested – or abducted for the purposes of molestation – by his uncle.
     When something traumatic happens to us, our minds tend to ignore those things, because processing traumatic events – such as abuse – involves admitting to yourself that the abuse has happened. Processing trauma also involves having conscious, present access to a vivid remembrance of how you felt, physically and emotionally, when that abuse was occurring.
     The process whereby the conscious mind is shielded from traumatic memories, is called A.I.P. (Adaptive Information Processing). It is called Adaptive Information Processing because the process of pushing a traumatic memory out of the conscious mind, is an adaptive behavior. If the body needs to fight or flee in order to survive, it wouldn't make sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, if the brain had no way to push less important wants out of the conscious mind, while focusing on the most urgent one (such as fleeing from a predator or from another dangerous situation).
     It's also perhaps worth noting that Aldous Huxley mentioned in The Doors of Perception that C.D. Broad discussed the mind as a “reducing valve” which filters-out information that the conscious mind considers not necessary for us to know. Huxley built upon this idea to elaborate the notion that hallucinogenic drugs open that “reducing valve”, flinging-open the so-called “doors of perception”, allowing us to explore our unconscious and/or subconcious while we are awake (or semi-awake, as in trance states or lucid dreaming states).
     The point being: Our minds filter out information that is not useful to us. Like the spiritual knowledge that we can feel but have difficulty expressing. Or the sneaking suspicion that a loved one physically or sexually abused us in the past; so badly that we forgot about it, or blacked out in the middle of it, or denied it (or all of the above).
     From an evolutionary standpoint, it is not conducive to our survival, to be willing to admit to ourselves that a close relative has sexually abused us. After all, this probably requires confronting that relative, and close relatives are the people upon whom human beings have traditionally relied during difficult times.
     The mind would thus have every reason to block-out information like that, which could only cause trouble in the family (once known as the clan, the basic unit of civilization).
     I suspect that my friend's uncle molested him, and then did something – either overt or covert – to lead him to believe that aliens were the ones who did it. Either the uncle bombarded him with books and TV shows and movies about aliens, to subtly make him think that aliens were the explanation for whatever happened to him that night that he couldn't remember clearly; or else the uncle directly threatened him and blamed the abuse on aliens after being confronted by his nephew.
     I have not spoken to my friend in several years, so some of that is speculation on my part. But it is an educated guess. We were friends for nearly ten years.




5. The X-Files Substituted Alien Abduction for Child Abduction

     Did you ever stop to think about what the show
X-Files is about, aside from merely aliens?
     Fox Mulder spends the whole show – and especially the movie – looking for his lost sister Samantha, who was abducted as a child. Her older brother thinks it was aliens, and will stop at nothing to find out what the F.B.I. knows about aliens, other mysterious beings, and his sister's disappearance.
     Who does David Duchovny's Fox Mulder work for? A secretive F.B.I. director, played by Mitch Pileggi, who's constantly telling him to keep quiet about things he's not assigned to and that are outside of his jurisdiction.
     They're always telling him to stop asking questions. It's a conspiracy of silence.
     It apparently never occurred to Fox Mulder that the fact that his little sister was abducted as a child may suggest kidnappers rather than aliens. Someone apparently forgot to tell a young Fox that kidnappers don't just want money, they might also want to touch your genitals.
     The whole point of the show is to ask the question “Where did Mulder's sister go?” and then half-answer it with a mix of “It was aliens” and “stop asking questions”. The show is back now, and – in a reverse of what happened to Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory - it is focusing on real-life government scandals more than the paranormal.
     It's hard to say whether X-Files wanted to encourage its audience to question their government more (as things seemed), or instead wanted to distract them from kidnappings, with rumors of alien abductions. As far as I can tell - based on Epstein, Maxwell, the Bronfmans, Hastert, and the admissions of former C.I.A. agent John Kiriakou – some of these child disappearances are actually being done by the U.S. government itself.
     Given what we know about how closely our government often works with Hollywood, it's hard not to wonder whether Americans were intentionally bombarded with alien stories, to distract American parents from what they really should have been worried about: teen drug addiction, teen pregnancy, teen S.T.D. rates (including H.I.V.) and who's responsible for all the child disappearances (now that we “know” it's not the school teachers or the Satanists. Right?).



6. John Podesta Believes in Aliens


     Considering this possibility - that aliens are being used as scapegoats for child disappearances – is it any wonder that former Hillary Clinton presidential campaign manager John Podesta both believes in aliens, and has been accused of child rape?
     http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-campaign-chief-john-podesta-s-interest-ufos-out-world-n674711
     In October 2016, NBC News reported that Wikileaks had leaked a 2014 e-mail from Rebecca Hardcastle Wright to Eryn Sepp and John Podesta. The topics of the e-mail were extraterrestrial experience and consciousness science.
     wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/15052
     Does this constitute an admission by the government that aliens exist? No. More likely, it is what the government directed the mainstream media to offer-up to the public, as one of the "real" Wikileaks that they are "allowed to see", in order to distract us from the more concerning contents of the Podesta e-mails.
     The e-mail may be from 2014, but N.B.C. didn't report it until the month before the 2016 election, when Wikileaks released the most damning of the John Podesta e-mails. This, to me, suggests that the admission that Podesta sent e-mails about aliens, may have been published in order to cover for, and distract from, the larger concern.
     The larger concern was, as you may remember, the allegations that he was involved in either cannibalism or child rape, in addition to participating in the occult “spirit cooking” so-called “art” practiced by apparent witch Marina Abramovic.
     Researchers were not without cause to suspect Podesta. A photograph surfaced of him with a bandage on one of his fingers, while instructions from Abramovic on how to do a spirit cooking ritual included cutting oneself on that same finger. Additionally, in the same photograph, Podesta appeared with a fish drawn on one hand, and the number 14 on the other, which researchers speculated is a reference to the Osiris myth.
     Podesta also received an e-mail on October 8th, 2015 – from Hillary Clinton aide Tamera Stanton Luzzatto – saying that her granddaughters (whose ages she listed) would be in a heated pool “for entertainment”. Luzzatto – whose husband David J. Leiter once worked as an aide for John Kerry and also lobbied for Burisma – invited Podesta to the event.
     http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46736
     Researchers discovered that Tamera Luzzatto once operated a blog called “Evie's Crib”, which some researchers believe Luzzatto used to profit off of using her daughters as underage camgirls (i.e., showing their naked bodies to paying strangers over the internet).
     Podesta's allusion to Osiris is not the only hint that something was off, spiritually, about the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Clinton herself was shown to have mentioned the ancient Caananite Moloch in an e-mail, apparently sarcastically commenting on how her critics seem to regard her as some sort of demon. Clinton may have been making a joke, but her awareness of Moloch is interesting to note.
     Like the Israelis, it looks like John Podesta (and Hillary Clinton, and Tamera Luzzatto) has a lot to distract people from.
     So why not aliens!?



7. Steven Spielberg's E.T. is a Pedophile Grooming Film

     I shouldn't end this article without mentioning the best-known children's film about aliens, the 1982 Steven Spielberg film E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.
     Spielberg, as a reminder, is Jewish-American, and directed the Holocaust film Schindler's List. Spielberg donates to Jewish groups and Holocaust awareness organizations.
     Jewish-American actor Owen Benjamin made several videos in 2019 and 2020, in which he exposed the pedophilia rumors surrounding Steven Spielberg. Benjamin noted that Heather o'Rourke, the star of Poltergeist, died at the age of twelve. Her cause of death was attributed to a congenital colon disorder and Crohn's disease, but the girl's mother said she didn't have that disease. Additionally, the Los Angeles -based coroner who examined the girl's corpse was named “Dr. Frank Sinatra”.
     Benjamin believes that Spielberg, and perhaps some of his associates, anally raped Heather o'Rourke on set, causing her to go into septic shock. Some researchers have published films speculating that Henry Winkler, who had previously worked with o'Rourke on Happy Days, may have lied about how o'Rourke died. Winkler stated that he heard she killed herself.
     There has also been speculation that Spielberg named Amblin Entertainment after N.A.M.B.L.A. (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), and rumors that a drug which appeared in Spielberg's first film Amblin contains references to pedophilia, or at least homosexuality.
     Those rumors, and the Heather o'Rourke death rumors aside, Owen Benjamin explained why he believes that Spielberg's film E.T. is designed to teach pedophiles how to groom children. Benjamin showed several clips of the alien, explaining that he wears a wig, dresses as a woman, and lives in your closet. He also has a magic finger, and he wants to touch you with it. And the ending of the movie is that E.T. saves Elliot during a surgical procedure. The message of the film is that, even if E.T. is ugly, you have to kiss him (like Drew Barrymore does). You have to let him stay in the closet. Your closet, actually! Hide him in a basket and protect him from the cops!
     And you have to let him touch you, because it's for your own good, and it has a legitimate medical purpose!
     If you want to teach your child to distinguish good touch from bad touch, you tell them “nobody is allowed to see you naked, or touch your genitals, unless it's your mommy or your daddy or a doctor, for wiping, or for a medical purpose.” To show an alien touching a child with a magical finger for a medical purpose, to a young impressionable child (who is half-scared-shitless trying to figure out how the fuck E.T. is supposed to be “cute”), negates all possible objections to unwanted touching by an adult.
     Don't want E.T. to touch you? He has to! If he doesn't, you'll die! What, exactly, is the difference between telling a child “If I don't touch you, you'll die”, and “If you don't let me touch you, I'll kill you”?
     Owen Benjamin was right to point out the possibility that E.T. is a pedophile grooming film. Not only because of the reasons I have mentioned; but for several others as well.
     For one, to promote E.T., Knickerbocker toys released an E.T. “finger light” that lights up and glows when you press a button on it. This toy showed up on Lolwot.com's list of “10 of the Most Inappropriate Toys Ever Made”, due to its large size, and arguable resemblance to an adult sex toy (i.e., a dildo).
     I'm sorry that I have to say this, but it's difficult to have to think about whether any pedophilic American parent saw E.T., picked up on the film's message, and used this toy to sodomize their child or children. I do not say any of this as a joke; it is unfortunate that we have to consider this possibility.


     Owen Benjamin has also pointed out that later in his life, Spielberg directed A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, starring Jude Law, and Haley Joel Osment. Osment plays a little robot boy who wants to become human. Owen Benjamin notes that on the poster for the film, Jude Law's character is leading the little boy into a giant human mouth. This arguably suggests that the boy is being symbolically eaten alive by pedophiles. It could also be an allusion to oral sex. The fact that the little boy is a robot and becomes friends with an adult man, might also be a reference to sex dolls.
     Something is certainly creepy about Spielberg's E.T. and A.I.. Between the pictures of Spielberg with Drew Barrymore and Heather o'Rourke on each of his knees, and the kid in A.I., and the little girl screaming “Goodbye, Jews” in Schindler's List, it seems that Spielberg is obsessed with children on some level. And that is undoubtedly cause for concern, whether or not there is merit to the idea that he raped Heather o'Rourke to death.




8. Disclaimer: Jews vs. Israel

     I have entertained a lot of unlikely, but also difficult, possibilities in this article. I have Jewish friends and family members, and that is why it pains me to have to consider the possibility that there are so many lies coming out of the State of Israel.
     I want to make myself absolutely clear: The State of Israel does not represent all Jewish people. To admit that it doesn't represent all Jews, is not to say that Jewish people are divided on the issue and therefore vulnerable. Admitting that there is disagreement in the Jewish community over what to do in and with the Holy Land, actually helps dispel harmful stereotypes that Jewish people have more allegiance to Judaism or Israel than to their host countries.
     Those who steal nuclear secrets, or traffic children, or engage in other corrupt or criminal acts, have no religion. People who use violence to promote a political or religious agenda have no religion. If religion is an organized form of spirituality designed to help one live in, and adjust to, the world, and to people of other faiths living upon it, then people who commit illegal and immoral acts in the name of religion are hypocrites and liars.
     That is why, I believe, Jesus said “they are the Synagogue of Satan” in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. He used the term to describe “Those who say they are Jews and are not.” Not all Jewish people are responsible for what Ghislaine Maxwell, or Benjamin Netanyahu, or Jonathan Pollard did, nor for what Steven Spielberg may have done. Only those who say they are Jews but are not. These people use Judaism as a cover for, and a distraction from, their crimes. They deflect criticism by characterizing all criticism of their crimes as an attack upon all Jewish people, or upon the religion.
     None of what I am saying should be construed to disparage the Jewish religion, nor the Jewish people, nor Israeli citizens. I aim only to criticize people in the Israeli government, the Israeli intelligence community and space forces, and certain Jewish-Americans in Hollywood who may be aligned with insidious elements in the State of Israel.
     Those elements are, sorry to say, evidently working to sabotage the United States, through trafficking its children for sex; in order to: 1) seal business and political deals, 2) blackmail people, and 3) use the entertainment industry to sexually groom American children and corrupt their sexual mores.



9. Conclusion

     It's hard to have to consider that Israelis are lying about aliens in order to cover-up the trafficking of children for sex, and the trafficking of nuclear secrets. But that is what I reasonably believe is going on.
     The Israeli plot to spy on the Clinton White House, nearly leaked when the Monica Lewinsky scandal happened. Some believe that she was an Israeli spy. There is widespread agreement among “deep state” or “conspiracy” researchers that an Israeli agent named MEGA had infiltrated the Clinton White House. That agent was almost certainly either Lewinsky, Rahm Emanuel, Leslie Wexner (Epstein's main funding source), or Epstein's girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell was photographed at Chelsea Clinton's wedding while her father was walking her down the aisle. MEGA could also be a reference to the MEGA Group, which Wexner founded.
     It's no coincidence that the 1998 U.S. bombing of Baghdad – about which liberals subsequently conveniently forgot – occurred right as the Lewinsky affair was going public. Even the neo-liberal pro-war propaganda outlet Saturday Night Live acknowledged that the new bombing campaign was a distraction from Lewinskygate.
     Regardless of the identity of MEGA, it's clear that Emanuel was in the Clinton White House, and had previous ties to Israel (through his service in the first Gulf War, and through his father's paramilitary service in the Israeli War of Independence). It's clear that the Israelis had at least several agents attempting to infiltrate the White House. If they didn't need to infiltrate, then they were welcomed inside.



     We need to remember with whom we're dealing here. Ghislaine Maxwell has a submarine company, TerraMar. She has been photographed with Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, the two richest men in America, both of them funding private space exploration.
     Whether Epstein is alive or dead, if Ghislaine Maxwell is allowed to escape prison (or get out on work release or supervised visitations), she could potentially hide under the sea or even in space. For all we know, Jeffrey Epstein is waiting for her in a SpaceX or Blue Origin ship, satellite, or space station, compliments of whichever of those two billionaires they supplied with more child sex slaves.
     Maxwell, Podesta, Spielberg, Bezos, and Musk have immense power and wealth (and libido dominandi; the lust or urge to dominate). Who can really say what they're capable of?


     They're certainly capable of lying. They've gotten themselves this far by lying, anyway.
     If they'll lie to save themselves, they'd probably lie to cover for each other, or to distract us from Israel's crimes and its spying on the United States (with which several of our politicians probably assisted them).
     The Israeli government certainly needs good press right about now. Becoming the first country to make contact with alien life-forms – and the first people to join the “Galactic Federation” - would certainly make all nations of the Earth bow down to the Israelis for the rest of time.

     But who would want that? Who would that benefit?


     Are you beginning to understand why Alex Jones keeps talking about "trans-dimensional human-alien-hybrid pedophiles coming down from the fifth dimension"?
     There are no pedophile aliens! Alex Jones probably just got high and watched E.T., and doesn't know how to talk about it!











Written on February 8th, 2021
Edited on February 16th, 2021

Memes not created by the author.

Second meme added on June 23rd, 2021

Based on notes written on February 5th, 2021

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...