Today, Lebanon's 'leader' is starting to get squeezed in the media over a usd $15 million payment to a prostitute.

The prostitute was not a random girl the Prime Minister Met at a club.

She had been cultivated for years.

The media gives the impression of a small scandal that will blow away in the next few days, but a lot of money and effort was invested in this operation.

https ://www .sars. pdf removed / broken link


The Jeffrey Epstein drama recently led to a lot of news about human trafficking.

The United States did everything within its power to avoid prosecuting Epstein, but was forced to do something to satisfy the media. Then high level people in government took drastic steps to hide the fact that he hadn't really been prosecuted, and the Miami Herald stepped in and forced a new prosecution. He would have gone free again, if he hadn't 'committed suicide', but that newspaper showed it had the power to force the government to pretend to act.

Likewise, the Boston Globe exposed the church sex abuse scandal, something that had been going on for more than a century with direct assistance from law enforcement and high government officials in many areas.

There are many other examples. What they all have in common is the extraordinary steps top law enforcement agencies take to derail the supposed investigations that were forced on them

This is not something that just started in the last few decades though. Donald Ewen Cameron was a psychiatrist who worked for the government in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. "In 1961 Cameron was appointed president of the World Psychiatric Association. He was also president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations."

"Several of the children who Cameron experimented on were sexually abused, in at least one case by several men. One of the children was filmed numerous times performing sexual acts with high-ranking federal government officials, in a scheme set up by Cameron and other MKULTRA researchers, to blackmail the officials to ensure further funding for the experiments."


Here is an article from Yahoo that details a case similar to Epstein's, but ignores an important fact.

Some related pages.

The fact that is ignored in both of these cases, and many more, is the evidence of an effort by an organized group of officials with law enforcement connections or powers to both promote the 'apex predator' while he is preying, and to prevent his capture or prosecution when he is uncovered. In that Michigan case the person being protected appears to have been involved in the government’s efforts to rapidly develop the oil industry, especially after the 1973 oil problems. He, Bill Allen, and many others were able to commit literally any crime with full protection from the FBI and other agencies. Bill Allen received a high level federal pardon for an ‘unknown’ crime in the 1970s, and was working for the feds since then.


 Francis D Shelden had an interest in the oil industry, like Bill Allen, who led VECO and worked as an undercover employee of a federal agency for decades before 'seeming' to assist in exposing political corruption. 

Allen's business developed smoothly. When he would be caught in an inappropriate sexual situation the FBI would arrange for the case to disappear.

Note that after the 'corruption investigation' was finished the FBI, with assistance from the media, took further steps to hide its involvement in protecting Bill Allen.

Shelden's case is similar. 

The newspaper article linked above is clearly trying to exaggerate inaccurate qualities that would go along with his 'oil industry' interest. The appearance seems to be that the article was an attempt to ease him into the 'cutting edge' industry. It appears to be an article that was initiated by some third interest, likely a federal agency, as part of Shelden's legend.

Shelden appears to have been vigorously protected by law enforcement until the cost became prohibitive, at which point he was assisted in 'disappearing'.

Epstein started out like Allen, Shelden and many others.

He became more successful than most, but eventually became 'cost prohibitive' to his government handlers and had to be cut loose.


Who is really chasing who?

Is there some rational justification for a powerful group of law enforcers and other government employees to manage large networks of 'human traffickers'? Are they doing it for some obscure but legitimate reason involving some higher cause that is invisible to 'lesser people' i.e., the public?


In fact the evidence seems to be that the 'law enforcement' activities of that group are something done hesitantly when there is some need to justify a budget or 'look busy'.

Compare the two men pictured here. FBI agent McCabe and Serial killer Hansen.

Both had an interest in law enforcement, and both aggressively 'hunted and captured' their targets for what amounted to personal gains.

McCabe was forced to act as part of a group, so he had to pretend to follow the rules of that group until he got caught. But he also knew that he could reliably trust his colleagues to camouflage and hide his crimes. His 'crime fighting' was really just 'painting others as criminals while avoiding the wrong end of the brush'. The goal of his group was to construct a 'justice' paradigm, to create a pattern in the public mind in which 'they' represent the archetype of a specific virtue.

Hansen worked briefly in law enforcement and had violent pathologies that are not uncommon among law enforcers, and if he had been more 'socially networked' he could well have been part of a network consisting of people like Shelden or any number of similar networks that value or encourage odd pathologies in order to create a cohesive group.

The fraudulent 'Alaska Corruption Investigation' is an example.

A vast network of federal agents were historically involved in complex activities, including what would be called 'human trafficking' today, but were forced by some unwitting authority in Washington DC to actually do some work too, so they reluctantly stitched together a 'corruption investigation'.


Here is an interesting quote from

The person speaking is Ronald Kelly, a Chicago police sergeant. Note that the meeting was taking place in Chicago, one of the most corrupt places in the U.S. at that time, and included the most powerful politicians of the day.

"This particular individual ordered 2,000 copies of a 200 foot reel of film, which they intended to distribute for $100 per copy. ... They could get rid of 2,000 copies in ten days and come back for another 2,000 copies."

Obviously if a person can sell 2,000 copies in ten days of a film showing boys being abused by men, the police are not enforcing laws against that, regardless of any testimony. 

In other words a sex trafficking conference took place in Chicago, a city where a person could sell 2,000 copies of an illegal type of pornography in ten days with a likelihood that they would not be arrested.

The local police, Chicago police, were asked to speak at the conference and what could they say? Obviously they have high members of their department receiving cash to allow an illegal activity, and they want to spin it a different way, but it's like juggling chainsaws.


Another observation can be made that is more relevant to the computer age.

Sexual abuse of children by adults is a melting pot phenomena. In traditional societies young couplings or 'marriages' are common, but it is one young person marrying another young person, for example a 15 year old marrying a 15 year old.

If you visit the Sentinalese, you may see them eat bugs, pick their nose, scratch inappropriately or try to kill you, but you will not see any adult involved in unnatural acts.

In an older melting pot culture it is common for there to be a mechanism that allows an older member of the dominant gender i.e., a male in a patriarchal society, to marry a young person of the opposite gender. This is something that derives from a society's melting pot past. It is not something that occurs in a genuine homogenous traditional society.

Any groups that have been present in industrialized societies for several generations will have some variation of this feature 'allowing' some sort of unnatural pairing even aside from 'sex trafficking'.

One derivative of this tendency in modern melting pots is a sort of game, like musical chairs, that is played by those in power. The objective, or point, is to place responsibility for certain crimes on certain groups. This was famously done with crack cocaine in the 1980s. Powerful wealthy white people used powdered cocaine, so it was given relatively minor criminal importance, but crack cocaine was used more by minorities, so it's use carried much stricter penalties.

A sneaky variation of that is done with sex trafficking.

Here is an example. There is sham 'privacy software' that is used by law enforcers to catch various types of criminals. It won't be identified here, because it has some legitimate uses. This software will be referred to here as 'xyz'. 

Most educated people who are involved in technology in any way are aware that xyz is a sham, a trap. So generally they would not use xyz if they were prone to hiding their involvement in any of the activities in which xyz is used as part of a trap. And yet many, many people are caught in 'stings' or traps using xyz. 

Who are the people caught? Those who are not aware it is a sham, a trap. In other words less educated people and people 'not in the loop'.

Who are the people not caught? People 'in the loop'. Law enforcers and educated people who are aware that it is a trap.

The people who control access to intelligence derived from xyz can be deduced by looking at who is caught and comparing that to statistical data. In other words what amounts to 'an intelligence tool' has been restricted to one sub segment of the population, which uses it to 'criminalize' another group.

Generally, so called "authorities" participate in child sexual abuse at a higher rate than other groups, this for psychological, financial and other reasons, but that activity is basically 'decriminalized' for many of them. They do not have to worry about it being illegal, and they have no motivation to discourage it. In fact they profit professionally from appearing to 'prevent the crime by enforcing the law', rather than solving the underlying riddle of the cause.

It is almost an annual news item to read about a sting that catches hundreds of department of defense employees using pentagon computers for child pornography. This year though, 2019, some congressmen decided to pass a law making it more difficult for people in the pentagon to use government computers for child pornography.

"Illustrating just how horrific the problem of government-sponsored child porn networks has become, according to the National Criminal Justice Training Center, one of the groups backing the bill, the DOD’s network is ranked 19th out of 3,000 for worst child exploitation networks in the country."

Here are 3 articles, within the last three days, involving four people who got lengthy prison sentences for doing much less than thousands of pentagon employees do on a daily basis.

https://ktiv.     com/2019/09/14/2-omaha-men-sentenced-to-prison-in-separate-child-porn-cases/  Article and online caches not available


Another modern day variation of this is to project 'sexual child abuse' onto the conquered part of a melting pot.

In the United States this involves portraying indigenous people as prone to child sexual abuse. The truth is that indigenous cultures had no tendency towards pedophilia, nor to less extreme but still unnatural pairings, until a part of their culture intersected, and was conquered by, a melting pot. 

So people who pertain to the 'melting pot' United States, of which child sexual abuse is an integral part, can minimize their responsibility by pointing to indigenous individuals as the 'offenders'. In other words 'sex abuse' is promoted dishonestly as 'yet another piece of evidence that the savages are inferior' rather than accurately as an essential function of the melting pot.


Augusto Pinochet was a dictator installed by the CIA.

"Investigations by Amnesty International and the Chilean National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation Report have verified that Colonia Dignidad was used by DINA, the Chilean secret police, as a torture and detention center during Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship." 


Camp Humphries is the largest overseas U.S. army base in the world.

It's has the usual corruption scandals, but nothing major.

It's Deputy commander got a farewell when he transferred back to the United States.

When he got back he met Randall Bischak who "joined the Army in July 2012 and has served in the Military Intelligence Corps Band on Fort Huachuca since July 2015."

There's more, "but the public is unlikely to learn much about the outcome. At a hearing March 1, Pima County Juvenile Court Commissioner Jennifer Langford imposed a gag order on the case."

"“I took pictures of her bruises. They said they’d look into it, but I couldn’t get any answers. So, I called the cops,” said Calderon, interviewed in Tucson before a judge put her under a gag order relating to this case."

Maybe ask Ms Breen? "Reached by phone in May, Breen said she, too, was under a gag order on the case." 

Are there any obvious reasons for the gag order?

There are.

Aside from raping female children, the deputy commander of the largest overseas U.S. army base in the world was also providing male boys in foster care to strangers in exchange for those strangers performing homosexual acts on him.

"Court records show the sex trafficking charge contained in Savage’s plea agreement stems from his admission he performed sexual acts upon David Frodsham in exchange for sexual contact with a minor.

David Frodsham, who worked with the U.S. Department of Defense for several years, is currently serving 17 years in state prison for sexual misconduct offenses dating back to 2015."

There are few details available, and the main story is only reported in one newspaper, so the gag order seems to be effective.


The Jeffrey Epstein case is an example of the circularity of melting pot legal systems.

 Any member of the public is presented with various roles, for example 'the victim' who endures sexual 'abuse' then matures and cashes in, or 'the perpetrator' who spends a lifetime having sex with underage teens then dies, etc.

The public does not actually learn anything from the legal system, except that their role is to be trained, to watch for cues and play roles.

The root of the problem in the Epstein case is not only ignored, it is obscured.

Young people learn only that their role is to be trained. In other words the lawyers, prosecutors etc are doing the exact opposite of what they are pretending to do. They are not only 'not teaching anything', they are 'teaching people to not learn' or 'teaching people to play roles'.

The melting pot system uses force and reward to push people to be trained, and pretends that training is 'learning', but no matter how many thousands of years pass, the thin veneer of 'training' washes away in the slightest weather.

The goal of the legal system should not be to allow a clique of prosecutors, lawyers etc to play the role of embodying some archetypal virtue. 

What that inevitably leads to is those characters who play 'personified virtues' gaming the system to feed their human nature, the part made invisible by their role. An 'Epstein trial' creates Epsteins and victims, just as in any game where the goal is to play and teach roles.

Much smarter would be an analysis of why all people in the melting pot are prone to the roles involved in human trafficking, and why no people in precontact indigenous societies that are isolated would participate in those roles. There is no single melting pot that invented the diseases of the melting pot. The first melting pots, countless thousands of years ago, learned that certain things are inevitable in a melting pot. Newer melting pots should learn rather than using laws to enforce mandatory stupidity.





~In Progress~