Tuesday, February 28, 2017

613 and Human Trafficking

Introduction: Isaiah 61:3 - God Will Replace Joy For Misery

“To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness: that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.”

As many of you know, I've been seeing the number 613 repeatedly for more than two years now, since approximately December 2014. Today, after many months of soul-searching and much time spent researching the problem of human trafficking, I believe I understand what God is trying to tell me with this number. Essentially, it is a promise and a warning.
  • There are 613 commandments in the Torah. When we bind ourselves to them, and do our best to keep them, God saves us. When we abandon the Torah, and God's teaching, then we see (God forbid) the reverse happening in the world.
  • The number 316, the obverse, is associated with the rebellion against God: When we rebel, God punishes us by letting evil proliferate. Those who traffic in children believe they can attain power in this world while denying God Himself. And when the world follows them and denies the existence of God, human slaves suffer the untold horrors of such animals.
The reversal of 316 to 613 -- this is the transformation of evil to good -- human trafficking to freeing the slaves. As humanity is waking up to the need to cleanse the planet of this evil,  He is reversing 316 to its opposite -- 613, a state of Godliness.
Here is some evidence to substantiate my theory about 613 and human trafficking.
316 - Human Trafficking BEFORE It Is Resolved

Suffering of Victims

Involvement of Law Enforcement

Legal Prohibitions

Outreach to Prevent and Recognize

Academic Research to Help Stop The Problem

316 is the page number of many articles about human trafficking - either starting or ending:
613 - Human Trafficking AFTER It Is Resolved




Permission is granted to redistribute this article freely - it is public domain.


By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. All opinions are the author's own. Public domain. Photo by sammisreachers via Pixabay.

A Listening Session With Federal Communicators

On February 15, 2017 the Federal Communicators Network (FCN) Professional Standards Working Group held a discussion of issues related to federal communication standards. These notes are public domain; what follows is an edited version that highlights key issues.

The Importance of Standards
  • Cost Savings: When asked if agencies had a lot of independent efforts underway without clear standards and lack of coordination, many hands were raised – “money goes one way and efficiency goes another way” 
  • Quality: The issue is quality of our work. If you're going to do a communication plan, the ideal one has these components. Budgets not expected to go up. Many have contractors, but no standards. 
What Standards Are & Are Not
  • Standards are not just nice things 
  • Standards are not “thou shalts” 
  • Standards are common starting points to tell you where you are starting from, and then you fill in the blanks 
What Happens Without Standards (2016 FCN Survey)
  • Vast majority don't have anything consistent going on from agency to agency. 
  • Most said they don't know what their career path is. 
  • Most said metrics, we don't use that. 
  • Most said they don't have tools and standards that would help them do better job. 
Without Standards, Communication Is Not A Well-Managed Function
  • One of the hallmarks of effective communications is a “seat at the table” - part of decision making and sharing responsibility for results. Right now communicators in the civil service do not have a seat at the table. 
  • There are a huge variety of people charged with doing communications – federal employees (full- and part-time), term employees, contractors (onsite and offsite). 
  • The function is usually decentralized across agencies. 
Government vs. Private-Sector Communication: Much More Complex
  • More power struggles 
  • More pressure to respond to publics 
  • More legal constraints 
  • More media coverage 
Typical Problems Government Communicators Face
  • Expertise dismissed; being told by leaders that they aren't going to “dictate how I do my job” 
  • Poor enforcement of existing standards within an agency 
  • Unclear standards from agency to agency 
  • Absent a code of conduct, subject to arbitrary orders from senior leadership and the threat of being called “insubordinate” if they refuse to do something unethical 
  • Backlash over bad news; e.g. news clips that are deemed “offensive” 
  • Communicators not seen as urgently needed as versus other professionals (e.g. lawyers) 
  • Internal audiences don't take seriously the need to know your audience through fact-based analysis rather than by personal impressions, gut instinct, etc. 
  • Substituting a newsletter for real communication strategy 
  • Professional development path as a government communicator unclear 
  • Trust issues stemming from politics (e.g. having the TV channels changed from CNN to FOX and back; put the agency TV on C-SPAN instead) 
Standards or No Standards, These Approaches Work
  • Neutral, fact-based information distribution 
  • Communication vehicles that target users, not leadership talking to themselves 
  • Hiring dedicated communicators 
  • Centralizing the communications function – not allowing individual offices to “do their own thing” 
  • Communication standards placed in individual performance plans 
Communication Mechanisms Currently Known To Be Effective
  • Email delivery services for reaching a like-minded audience 
  • Social media for audience engagement 
  • Crowdsourcing and collaboration platforms 
  • Simple messages, broadcast widely with a link to more information (e.g. plasma TV monitors by the elevator with a link to fuller articles on the intranet) 
All opinions my own.

Monday, February 27, 2017

The Antithesis Of "Spin Doctors"

The fact that government communications is ripe for abuse has undoubtedly contributed to trust levels in government that are at their lowest ever. While it is true that political corruption is chiefly responsible for public disillusionment (e.g. "Vietnam: The Loss Of American Innocence?") it is also true that outsized spending on federal public relations contracts, as well as propagandistic agency communications play a role. Though the Government Accountability Office has long recognized that appropriately used communication is one of the government's top five internal controls, the way in which federal communications has been abused is not just wrong, but has also turned its dedicated practitioners into a public joke.

At this time, fortunately, there are a number of efforts underway to remedy this situation. In the U.S. military, the nature and scope of the public affairs function has been codified. In the U.K., civil service communicators now have clear guidance as well. In the U.S., federal agencies and employees, including the Federal Communicators Network of which I am a part, are working to update and implement proper standards and prevent manipulation of statutory requirements that prohibit self-promotion and propaganda.

To give just one example, the General Services Administration has developed a short list of questions to be considered before requirements are written for advertising and marketing contracts. (Considering that we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, this is not a small advance.) These questions force the person writing the requirements to consider not only whether the proposed contract will violate the law, but also this crucial question: “Is the statement of work so broadly written that it could be interpreted to condone or encourage any of the activities described above? If the answer is yes, the statement of work/Request for Quotations is not yet ready for issuance.”

It is easy to be pessimistic about government; as citizens we are regularly cautioned not to trust it. As former British ambassador Craig Murray, who lost his job for speaking out about human rights abuses, once put it: "As a rule of thumb, if the government wants you to know it, it probably isn't true."

You can argue, as well, that a healthy distrust of government is not just good, but patriotic; with that I tend to agree.

But it is also true that we should not rest our laurels on the inevitability of alienation.

The fact of the matter is that we do have a country, a country needs a government, and as civil servants in particular we have a responsibility to help see to it that the government functions well.


All opinions my own.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

The War of the End Times Is Here

I received a very strong feeling this morning on awaking, telling me everything is going to be OK.

Why is this important?


As you all know, I believe we are already immersed in the final war, the war of the End Times. This occurred to me based on reading about the times of the Moshiach (Messiah).


Already I thought that the founding of Israel as a modern Jewish state is part of these times. And that due to our lowly spiritual state the struggle for it is painful, awful, drags us down, and at times has involved evil deeds unfortunately.


Something I read the other day (can't find the link) enlightened me that this whole thing about "fake news" is just another chapter in our evolution, and in the war.

The proliferation of vicious, malicious lies and character assassination of innocent people, while monsters are held up as role models, is the material expression of the Devil rising up to deceive us as forcefully as possible.

For if we were left to ourselves we would immediately recognize truth from evil and act accordingly. The Messiah would come right away and Satan's job, ordained from Heaven, is to oppose that.


The source is a PDF readily available online at http://www.israel613.com/books/MODERN_EREV_RAV.pdf. I don't know who put it together. It is a compilation of Jewish mystical writings aimed at helping us understand the exile and path to ultimate redemption on a deeper level. (The discussion of the enemies we face is on p. 54.)

Note: This text is Jewish in nature. It is primarily abstract and conceptual. If you're a technical, literal person, and you don't like Kabbalistic type inspirational readings, it may not be meaningful to you and may even be off putting.


Because for those of us who are interested in this type of thing, it is powerful. My gut tells me we are looking at truth here.


We are in exile, not just as Jews but as a planet. Good is put down and imprisoned. Evil and suffering dominate.


These are the conceptual enemies we face. I would argue that you should not correlate them with specific religions. They are the energies of evil.

1) Esav - Satanists, idol worshippers, sorcerers, magick practitioners, witches, etc. -- people who believe in harnessing the power of science/natural law while *rebelling* against God. To clear something up, Esav is *not* the Christians.

2) Yishmael -- the wild, warlike, conquering descendants of Ishmael in the Bible. This is a bit unclear to me as I personally distinguish between radical Islamic terrorists and the God fearing Muslims who are not cruel, godless, woman-abusing conquerors.

 3) The Erev Rav - this is the worst group of all, the "mixed multitudes" meaning they combine good and evil and intermingle with our Torah scholars, and among all good and God fearing people, pretending to be good and sometimes seeming successful, but really they are evil deceivers who turn people away from holiness.


The text says that the Erev Rav "is our greatest enemy" who has the capacity to join Esav and Ishmael together and "destroy Israel and the entire world."


We are told that the worst enemy, the Erev Rav, "works only through deception and roundabout ways" and that "we must strengthen ourselves for this war."

Further we are not free to shirk it: "Anyone who does not participate in the battle against the Erev Rav becomes, de facto, a partner...and was better off not being born in the first place."


The text emphasizes elsewhere (p.46) that "the simple Jews are the ones who sustain the world."

I believe this means the simple PEOPLE WHO FEAR GOD, not just the Jews - keep in mind this text is aimed at Jewish people.

If you read Isaiah 66 it is clear that Messianic times involve the salvation of all the good people from all the nations.


The End Times (as per the text) are characterized by: Immoral people and particularly immoral Jewish leaders posing as true leaders. A flood of immorality. Money worship. Worship of image instead of goodness. Widespread deception. Deception.

In response we must do the simple and obvious things.

1. Seek truth and speak truth. Stay away from questionable people no matter how they "seem". We all know people of high regard regularly abuse their station.

2. Pray to God. Only God. It can be in simple terms. God loves simple honest people. He is not with the sophisticated intellectual who has no fear of Him.

3. Find like-minded people and resolve to serve Him and only Him as part of the worldwide community of believers.

4. Repent. That means trying and resolving to be better. It doesn't mean anything else.

5. Give. Financially support the true poor scholars who study Torah for its own sake. Give charity to the needy. Help with your activism. Selflessness.


The final war has begun.

We will all be judged. We are not really worthy.

But God sees into the hearts of Man. And He has mercy on us for the sake of our efforts, and for the sake of the children.

For goodness sake, please get involved and help.

You have my permission to share this.


Tuesday, February 21, 2017

5 Ways Government Branding Is Harder

  1. Brand architecture: This is the discipline of assembling names and logos into a coherent framework. In the private sector it's easier because your end game is basically profit. (The challenge there is to balance long-term investment in reputation with short-term gains in revenue.) In government it is extraordinarily difficult to pursue any sort of brand architecture strategy without involving many stakeholders with competing interests, and without invoking many levels of law, regulation, policy, and so on. Without a clear identity strategy that puts you in a context of related identities, the communication you provide is far less likely to be impactful. 
  2. Brand leadership: In the private sector it is generally more or less clear who is responsible for the development and the articulation of the brand. In government, the lines are frequently muddied as most initiatives are cooperative in nature. 
  3. Brand metrics: The private sector has relatively reliable formulas with which to measure the strength of a brand; fundamentally, you can examine the performance of one product as versus its competitors. Yet the government does not have competition, and its outcomes (e.g. a drop in crime rates) are difficult to correlate with brand success. The closest one can come is an attitudinal measure, such as perceptions related to trustworthiness, but again it is difficult to determine with certainty how those perceptions concretely add to or subtract from performance. 
  4. Brand confusion: In government the term "branding" is frequently confused with "logo and tagline development," and this activity is distinguished from "advertising," "marketing," and so on. In the private sector there is a far greater understanding that all activities connected with image are connected, and so even seemingly humdrum materials like an employee orientation manual are seized up on as an opportunity to develop equity. 
  5. Brand boredom: For all its glamorous associations, branding is usually a very ordinary and even boring activity because it fundamentally requires consistency: doing the same thing over and over again. In the government, when a new program is launched, there is frequency a desire to show it off -- thus the trademark image of "ribbon-cutting" that can be seen in so many official publications. Instead of muddying the water with shiny new pennies every now and then, there is a strong need for government to get used to the idea that great brand work is about as humdrum as can be. 

All opinions my own.

Monday, February 20, 2017

Open Letter to a Broken Website

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to inform you that I hate your website.

Maybe you think that nobody actually uses websites nowadays -- what with Facebook and all -- but I use yours, and it totally sucks.

Why do I feel strongly enough to write you a letter?

Well, for the one thing, I had a problem with my bill the other day. And I had to navigate my way through approximately 50,000 pages of content just to submit you an email.

(If you count the multi-factor security page that total would be 50,001.)

Believe me I tried not to bother you. I did. I went to the Community Forum-slash-Knowledgebase to see if there were some answers there.

But nope, nada, nothing.

I tried to use your Chat function but it seems the Chat hours are only 9-4.

It said that you have telephone-based customer service too. But you know how telephone customer service is, right? Usually totally frustrating.

In case you wanted to know what I thought of the "Splash Page" on Page One of your website: Love it!

Really, I do.

I wanted to know that you have at least four or five new and interesting projects going on right now, and that they take up almost half the page they're so important.

It's also great that your overall design is so incredibly spare.

So spare, in fact, and so much white space -- I almost didn't see the "Help" link.

But it's a good thing you had it at the bottom of the page -- way down, maybe, way below where I would have thought to look for it in the first place -- but fortunately, there it was.

It would have been nice to access your webpage from my mobile device, but that totally didn't work.

And I didn't really feel like searching for an app with your name on it.

Sorry if this hurts your feelings, Company, but there is more to selling a shiny high-tech service than the snazzy service itself.

Much more, in fact.

What I wanted from your website was a way to tell somebody, quickly, that I needed some help to fix an error -- not my error, mind you, but yours.

So please fix your website.

Right now you're limping, and I didn't sign up to spend all that money every month to pay for your broken leg.




All opinions my own.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

A Woman Was Crying To Me In Shul

She said that there was a sisterhood meeting. Did I go?

"No. I hate the sisterhood meetings."

She said that they had read "All Who Go Do Not Return," by Shulem Deen. Had I read it?

"Yes, it's a great book."

She confided in me: "I feel just like him inside," she said. "I want to have faith, but I just can't."

I took her hands in mine. They were so warm.

I looked at her, in her eyes. They were welled up with tears.

The rabbi was about to make kiddush. He makes kiddush for the whole community every week.

Then they wash for Motzi, and then we eat a meal together.

I looked at my friend, in her eyes. And I saw myself there.

In her eyes I felt the wash of pain that only someone who has struggled with faith can feel.

I remembered being forced to be religious.

And I remembered how I threw it all away.

I remembered how I cried to even set foot inside of a shul.

And I how I couldn't so much as open the prayerbook.

I held her hands in my hands. And I looked into her eyes, her swollen eyes.

And the thought of that moment makes me cry, too, because of the pain of another human being.

And I said to her, and this was God speaking into my ears, that what He wants is not the perfection of your actual faith.

What is dear to Him is the struggle.

And I know she understood what I meant to say, because as my Zayde (a"h) once told me, "words that come from the heart go into the heart" as well.

When I was unreligious a lot of people wrote me off.

Today I am more religious, but not the kind of religious that an Orthodox Jewish person would accept.

I am "whatever kind of spiritual." It isn't good enough. But it's me.

What I want to say to you is this. A Jew is always a Jew and has the soul of a Jew, no matter who they are and no matter what they do in life.

"You can run away from a lot of things," my mother always says. "But you can't run away from yourself."

A Jewish soul will always yearn in its deepest reaches for God.


All opinions my own.

Friday, February 10, 2017

A Muslim Uber Driver Defends The Jews

It was late and the DC streets were twisty. We sat huddled in the back, scared, because you never quite know if you're safe in the cab.

The driver got lost in the middle of the ride and for a few moments I was more than scared, I was terrified.

We sat there holding our iPhones in our hands, silently tracking where the car was as versus the route, trying not to let the driver see. In between I checked the dashboard GPS. It seemed like we were OK.

"Confusing streets, right?" This is me attempting to make sure we're not getting lost on purpose. "It's so much easier to navigate New York."

My fellow passenger caught on. "Yeah, I hate how confusing DC is."

The driver chimed in. "I hate DC! These streets are just impossible."

In fact it is true, if you try to get around these side street in the city without having walked it on foot, good luck to you. And especially at night.

"Where are you from?" I asked the driver.

"Wisconsin, originally Afghanistan. Now I am in Virginia."

I don't know why I did this next thing, but I did.

"I am not a big fan of Virginia," I said. "I'm a Jew."

At this the driver turned around. "Come again? What was that?"

"I'm a Jew," I clarified, "and Virginia is very Christian. I'm not sure they like Jews over there."

My fellow passenger mouthed silently, "What the hell are you doing?"

And I mouthed back, "It's fine," although truthfully I didn't really know if it was fine. I had opened my mouth spontaneously, going only by my gut instinct.

She was looking at her iPhone frantically, as was I. I did not know where the hell we were. I had a 60-65% comfort level at that point, which is not high.

So we tried to pretend that the comfort level was actually 90%, because sometimes when you get nervous you actually can create the very problem that you fear.

"Oh, that's not true," said the driver. "There are lots of Muslims in Virginia."

I wasn't quite sure how the presence of many Muslims was intended to make me as a Jew feel better.

"There are all types of people there."

"That's very interesting," I said. "I did not know that."

In fact I did know that, but I didn't really want to get into the shifting demographics of Virginia State. Mostly I was keeping an eye on the map.

"I believe that we are all from the same God," said the driver. "A lot of Muslims don't like Jews, and even my family doesn't say anything when they start to put the Jews down. But I always defend them."

That would be us.

"Well, thank you," I said and at that my fellow passenger laughed, startled.

"I don't believe in keeping silent about things that matter."

At this I was absolutely amazed.

The driver went on to talk about how the Palestinian conflict never seemed to end, how it seemed crazy that they couldn't make peace over there, and how his home country of Afghanistan had been wracked by war for decades.

He said that he had left Afghanistan in the late 1970s, after the Soviet invasion, which the United States helped the Afghans to resist.

"Was there ever a time of peace in Afghanistan?"

"No, no. As soon as we got the land, the leaders started fighting among themselves, and they never stopped until the Taliban took over."

By now we were on the main road, although the route we took was really nutty. It is hard for me to fathom how complicated a simple short trip can get.

But the driver seemed like he was just doing his job.

"I believe what it says in Isaiah," I said at some point, "that in the Messianic times all the people who believe in God will worship Him together. It will be a New Age."

The driver did not seem to find this idea all that interesting. And there were a few minutes remaining within which to fill the silence.

"So who did you vote for in the election, if I may ask?" It seemed like a safe enough topic now.

"Not Hillary," said the driver. "I cannot stand that Hillary Clinton. She is awful."

My fellow passenger and I looked at each other and laughed. This seems to be the common refrain: "I can't stand Hillary," and then "Trump."

"So you voted for Trump then," I said.

"Yes, Donald Trump. I like that he says exactly what he thinks - he doesn't hold anything back."


"Did you hear him on that news interview the other day?"

"The one where he said we're a bunch of killers?"

"Yes," said the driver. "I loved that! He said Putin is a killer, and we're not so innocent either."

"I think it's very carefully calculated," I said to the driver. "He doesn't just make it up off the top of his head."

Silence then. "Maybe."

We had arrived at our destination.

"Do you know why I'm a Republican?" said the driver. "I get all these people in here, and they talk to me about 'I hate Trump this,' and 'I hate Trump that,' but do you know why?

"Tell us."

"Because the immigrants come in, and they work hard, and then they still take the government money. The Democrats always give out the goodies, but the Republicans don't let them get away with that stuff."

I was so relieved and grateful that the ride was over, we were safe and the trip was uneventful.

"Thank you very much," we said, almost in unison.

"You're most welcome," said the driver. "I guess I have trouble with directions, because I am used to driving in my hometown."

"Afghanistan?" I asked.

"No, my hometown in Wisconsin."


All opinions my own.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

"Building Bridges" Between Civil Servants & The Incoming Trump Administration


The following are my notes on "Building Trust with New Leadership," an event cosponsored by the Partnership for Public Service and the Federal Communicators Network that focused on helping civil servants work effectively with the new Administration. The event is availabl free for viewing on Vimeo

As always, in attending such events and sharing information and opinions on social media, I am independent, meaning that I do not represent my agency or the federal government as a whole. These notes are public domain and may be freely reproduced and distributed. 


Executive Coach Michelle Woodward

Theme 1: Teamwork

Based On "The Five Behaviors Of A Cohesive Team" [TM] by Wiley Workplace Solutions & Patrick Lencioni

  • Results: 
    • "If you can do trust-based conflict, then we can get to commitment to the same goal. Then we can hold each other accountable without people being attacked. Once you have all that, that's when you get to results."
  • Disagreement:  
    • Myers-Briggs personality type influences how we approach one another: Thinkers need justice, feelers need harmony. 
    • Aim to "build bridges, not burn bridges." 
    • "Appreciate the opportunity to learn where the other person is coming from." 
    • "Appreciate the opportunity to learn what you could have done better
  • Trust: 
    • "Stick to the issue at hand."
    • "Offer and accept apologies without hesitation." 
    • "Own an apology." 
    • "Be genuine." 
    • "Be consistent." 
    • "Be present in this moment not the last Administration." 
    • "Accept questions." 
    • "Give others the benefit of the doubt." 
  • Office Gossip/Office Politics:
    • "Sometimes gossip is 'important information' but 'if I wouldn't say it to you, I wouldn't say it about you'" - differentiate between information and words that are "hurtful or mean"; mean words don't build trust.
    • "You can either get enmeshed in that or step back from it."
    • Keep your ears open but don't get engaged in all that hoopla."
    • If there's a meeting that you should have been in - "give the benefit of the doubt" - "small corrections" - say "Hey X, that meeting is in my programmatic area, I believe I should be included in those meetings" and "9 times out of 10, X will say 'Thank you.'"
  • Coping:
    • First understand reality - "good to know" - then try to change reality (paraphrase); "when you see this is the lay of the land, step back, say 'good to know, they're showing me exactly who they are, who can be my ally'?"
  • Understanding Others:
    • “Find out - what motivates people? 
      • "Quality time" 
      • "Words of affirmation" 
      • "Take something off their plate" 
      • "Gift" (comment from DB: obviously “gift” here means something small and thoughtful, e.g. the speaker mentioned chocolate chip cookies; not an illegal or unethical one.)

Theme 2: Self-Management 

Based On The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz

"This is really on you - these four agreements are agreements you make with yourself that can help you." Paraphrased:
  • Keep your word; don’t use words to say back things about yourself or gossip.
  • Remember that others act because of their own perceptions and motivations, not because of you – it’s not personal.
  • Don’t assume anything – ask first, communicate so that you can avoid unnecessary “misunderstandings, sadness and drama.”
  • For your purposes, doing your best is the equivalent of excellence; there is no abstract high mark you always have to meet (because that is humanly impossible).

Theme 3: Managing Stress

  • "Units of energy" - if you're spending 60% spun up about office politics or office gossip, can't get things done. Keep a time log.
  • Breathe - breathe in the feeling you want (e.g. happiness) and out the feeling you don't want (e.g. sadness)

Audience Q&A

  • Fear of the New Administration:
    • Question: “I work for an agency that was in love with the last administration and is very scared and worried about the new one. How to handle?” 
    • Answer: “Stages of grief. You may be orbiting anger for a while, but hopefully you get to acceptance. I wouldn't rush anybody through the stages, because it's a profound change. Also don't make assumptions about who these people are or worry about what could possibly happen. Focus on right now, what's the reality, what do we know so far? If you want to be active, think about how can you effectively talk to allies about supporting the work of the office?
  • Opposition/Disagreement (Related To Above Question; Coping With Negative Emotions/Reactions To Or Disagreements With The New Administration)
    • "Be an activist within the rules of your organization. Overall think about how can I greet these people, see them for who they are, build trust, because wouldn't it be awesome if you could turn them around into allies.” 
    • "All of us need to understand what is our breaking point. What is the point at which we're not going to provide tax returns of enemies. I would recommend each of us search our own heart, and our own values and say - (what are the things about which) I can't compromise." 
    • "I do think you can be people of conscience and do your work well."
  • Battling Perceptions:
    • Question: “How do you counter the (perception that all feds are obstructionist because of the) "alt' or the "resistance,” e.g. the Twitter accounts that have been stood up, this is not like anything else we’ve seen in the past. 
    • Answer: “You don't want to be ‘tarnished’ that you’re ‘subverting or obstructing,’ say ‘don’t tar me with the same brush.’” But “we are in uncharted waters, this is unusual.”
  • Chain of Command:
    • Question: What do you do when “political appointees came in and asked for ideas” (but) “other people in the office are going to say you should've come to me first; how do you handle not violating the trust of your own people in your organization by expressing your ideas to them?” (e.g. the chain of command). 
    • Answer: “My thought would be, rather than going around your direct supervisor, saying to your supervisor can we go in together." Separate comment from the audience: “Not always does your leadership want these ideas to go forward.” Presenter comment: “It always comes back to you. Dn't gossip."
  • Getting "Shot Down":
    • Question: “What do you do when your good idea is automatically shot down?”
    • Answer: “Find out what motivates them (fear, or need information) and respond directly to that.” “Say - "I've got your back" (not going to do anything to hurt you).” Audience answer: “Focus on what problem you're solving rather than how you're feeling about it.”
  • Hitting A "Brick Wall":
    • Question: What if you’re not getting anywhere? 
    • Answer: "If you feel like you're hitting a brick wall, go back to trust" and "If they're just a closed person, just say 'good to know.'"
  • Dealing With People Who Just Want To Win:
    • Question: What if "all they care about is 'victory?'" 
    • Answer: “Again, (say to yourself) ‘good to know’ then ‘what do I want’; also ask ‘How am I getting engaged here’ or ‘affected’ (by what’s going on) - you may need to ‘call a break’; if you have trust you can say, ‘is this about winning or about finding the solution?’”
  • Exclusion: 
    • Question: “Please talk to ‘practices of exclusion’ that can ‘mess with trust’ and ‘dissemination of information’ - where ‘other groups of people know information before other groups know it.’
    • Answer (from fellow audience member): “(You have) so many opportunities to advocate internally" - "they (leadership) don't know that information they share to senior management does not cascade down."

Audience Comments

  • Conscience: 
    • “Marion Wright Edelman once said, ‘Be a flea on the big guy.’ Whenever there's a need to say the truth, do it."
  • Trust: 
    • “Last administration the "trifecta of evil went behind closed doors and started this culture of fear" saying they were ‘evaluating projects’ - nobody wanted to reveal anything." 
    • "They were ‘egotistical micromanagers who ‘all had a different perception of what the agency should be doing or where we were going’ and ‘used the workforce against each other’ for ‘four years.’" 
    • "(Then) ‘new leadership, completely empowering’ and there was ‘hesitancy about being able to trust’ because ‘in the past the light at the end of the tunnel was an oncoming train.’ ‘Just wanted to point it out because this trust issue is really really critical." 
    • "Sometimes we're beating our heads against really a solid wall. (But on a) positive note - it will change. People will cycle out, it will change."
  • Buy-In: 
    • "Convince them it was their idea and then give them credit" (semi-humorous)
  • Service: 
    • "Use a debrief from prior Administration - what was helpful to them?" (Generally they want "more involvement" from the civil service)

All opinions my own. These notes are public domain and may be freely reproduced and distributed.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

How I Became An Activist

I had gone to the White House for a meeting and on the way remarked to my boss that my father raised us to stay away from rallies. When I was young I wanted to protest for the Soviet Jews, to free them but he was afraid that the FBI would take my picture and I would be put into a database of enemies of the state.

He told me I had a right to be an activist.

Now you have to understand that my Zayde, a"h, was there when the Sharmash Massacre took place in 1944 in Hungary and the "paramilitary" looted, tortured and executed Jews. He did what he could, including serving on the committee to ensure those massacred received a decent burial.

My Zayde, an unassuming man, had been a military officer. During the war he protected the Jews as best he could, by hiding them in horse-manure-riddled hay to prevent them from freezing to death.

My Bubbie, a"h was in Auschwitz.

So we knew very well that the State could turn very ugly very fast and as a survival tool we learned, first of all not to talk about the Holocaust (or else we could not go on) and second not to make any trouble if we could avoid it.

I didn't say all of this to my boss, but some of it.

I didn't go in to the details about how, in my heart, I always wanted to be a social activist.

In my youth I read the Jewish Press and the columns there by Rabbi Meir Kahane, z"l, who was assassinated in 1990 by El Sayyid Nosair, may his name be erased from the history books. Despite the fact that he was guilty, Nosair was acquitted; he then went on to conspire with other terrorists. The result was the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Clearly Rabbi Kahane was not a saint. My own view is that, like many geniuses, he was brilliant and a little crazy, which explains statements like "there's no coexisting with cancer," referring to Israel and the Arabs. And the Jewish Defense League, which started out with noble aims, eventually descended into violence and terrorism. In Israel, the Kach party he founded was eventually banned from parliamentary elections for being "racist and undemocratic."

But as the Palestinians themselves will tell you, "strangely enough, this racist right wing Jew conveys more respect to Palestinians and Arabs than his ‘humanist’ opponents who actually dismiss Arab and Palestinian nationalist aspirations."

Rabbi Kahane never pretended that Palestinians and Arabs should have equal rights in Israel. His approach to the issue of coexistence was simple, clear and based in Jewish law. It's articulated well in Wikipedia:
"Kahane proposed enforcing Jewish law, as codified by Maimonides, under which non-Jews wishing to dwell in Israel would have three options: remain as "resident strangers" with all rights but national ones, leave Israel and receive compensation for their property, or for those who refused either option, be forcibly removed without compensation."
Taking the halachic (Jewish legal) approach neatly addresses the Western secular democratic pretense, the hypocrisy, of arguing that non-Jews theoretically are equal citizens in the Jewish state when in fact the Israeli national interest lies fundamentally in keeping them out of power.

Yet for being an unabashed defender of the right of the Jewish people to exist, in safety -- everywhere and anywhere -- for being an unabashed defender of keeping the Jewish state Jewish, Kahane was branded a racist.

Eventually, he was assassinated by the very kind of terrorist he tried to warn us about.

For 90% of my life I avoided becoming a social activist, because I didn't want to "get in trouble," "cause trouble," "make trouble," or "become labeled as trouble."

But around 2009, two things happened that began to change me.

  • As a civil servant in the Obama administration, and particularly witnessing the events pertaining to the "Fast & Furious" scandal unfold, it became clear that something very wrong was happening and that the mainstream media and some in Congress were being enlisted in covering it up. It was the efforts of brave reporter Sharyl Attkisson and blogger David Codrea (blog now defunct) -- both of them harassed for their integrity -- that blew the scandal wide open. I read a lot, saw a lot, but kept my mouth shut for fear of losing my job.
  • Within the Jewish community, I became aware that sexual abuse of children by rabbis was not just an occasional problem but rather a rampant disease. Reading the book Sexual Abuse, Shonda and and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities, the blog Failed Messiah and watching the birth of Jewish Community Watch, I saw the same pattern of brave activists being shouted down and shut down by the mainstream community, and victims dismissed in favor of those in power.
In 2015 I attended my first public protest ever, to support Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu against all the critics of his speech to Congress against the Iran deal. As it later turned out, President Obama's speechwriter architected a fraudulent story about the plan that was used to sell it to the world.

The pattern keeps repeating itself. People who say uncomfortable things are shushed by the politically correct -- who refuse to even name the source of terrorism. Who, in the case of Jewish rabbinic sex abusers, refused to acknowledge the simple fact that it is the Orthodox themselves who facilitated serial pedophilia against their own community, by shoving the problem under the rug.

Social activism woke up the Jewish community, and it is still waking up.

And social activism woke up the American Nation, which also is still coming to consciousness.

Thank you to the boss who encouraged me to exercise my freedom of speech and assembly, and to become a social activist.


All opinions my own.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

The Problem With Open Borders

On February 3, 2017, Fox News' Tucker Carlson interviewed refugee advocate Michael Breen, who co-founded and now serves on the Board of Directors of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

No question, IRAP sounds good. According to their website, the project "organizes law students and lawyers to develop and enforce a set of legal and human rights for refugees and displaced persons" and is "nonpartisan."

Similarly, Breen's professional background, as a military combat veteran, would seem to establish that his comments are not those of an ivory-tower academic but rather someone with actual experience among the populations he advocates for.

The discussion between Carlson and Breen is somewhat wide-ranging and I think the latter makes some valid points about the nuances of American foreign policy. In particular he makes legitimate points about due process in particular cases, and more broadly that it is off-putting for Muslims to be told, essentially, that they're good enough to fight for "over there," but that we don't trust them enough to let them into the United States..

But then Breen's argument starts to fall apart, and in the falling apart it lays bare the essence of the problem with an "open borders" philosophy. And that is that liberals tend to confuse feelings with facts.
  • They believe that we have a "moral obligation" to take in a sea of refugees -- Breen's figure was 100,000 a year, at least. But they can't tell us how to feed, house, employ and provide healthcare for the poor people we already have. Nor can they explain what to do with the rape gangs and rioting mobs that are currently bedeviling Europe.
  • Liberals tell us that refusing entry to refugees "only helps radicals to recruit." But the reality is that people join up for a lot of other reasons, specifically the promise of sex slaves, money and glory.
  • They tell themselves -- from the comfort of their "safe spaces" in America's most expensive universities -- that the United States is a bad colonial power, and so our Nation is actually "a state of mind, not a state of geographical boundaries." In other words, let everybody in -- and we'll go to their countries -- and all of us will be very nice and get along.
While Breen seemed like a sympathetic, intelligent and educated character he could not answer the question that Carlson posed over and over again, which is: How is it in the U.S.' best interest to let in a massive amount of people deemed even by the prior Administration to be a threat to the United States?

But there are other questions.
  1. Why has admitting refugees become a moral barometer for American values, while the value of caring for our own population goes ignored?
  2. Why is there such a push to admit populations prone to anti-American radicalism and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate?
  3. Why is there such a push to displace people from their native areas and push them into a completely foreign culture with values very much in opposition to much of what Islam actually says?
  4. Why is there such scant attention to the economics of the options involved, e.g. safe housing in the Middle East versus transportation to the United States?
  5. Why, given that there are so many Muslim countries, is there such a pushy narrative going on about deliberately resettling refugees here?
I believe the answer to this question is that there is a deliberate agenda here. I believe that some of the world's most wealthy and powerful people have a pre-existing desire to eliminate the existence of national borders and replace them with a borderless planet governed by the United Nations or some equivalent.

In order to achieve this "open" world, these influencers would need to convince us that preserving one's unique identity is somehow a bad thing. Like the Borg on Star Trek, they seek to assimilate everyone into a generic hodgepodge where religion, history, culture, ethnicity, and even gender is somehow "antiquated," therefore "fluid" and not really real.

They sell us on this idea through Hollywood, which on its personal time is well-known for defiling innocent people through the "casting couch," through organized pedophilia, and through the selling of depraved forms of sexuality as though "there is nothing to see here, move on." I recall a friend who lives there, and who works in the entertainment industry, telling me that "nobody will even touch a project that has anything to do with believing in religion."

Crossing borders, crossing identities, and crossing a person's most intimate boundaries are all inherently connected at the source. Good people are of course drawn to the seeming ideals that such enterprises offer them -- a chance to help the persecuted, a chance to liberate people who are stuck in society's conception of who they should be, and a chance at true personal freedom from the "shackles" of those who would lock them down in the prison that is morality.

This is not to say that one should take an extreme position, of course. But it is to point out the very evil hidden agenda that hides behind the seemingly liberatory phrase, "Open Borders." What will we say when we are micro-chipped for our global slave masters, who know where each of us are, who cannot be fought because they dominate everything, and who can take everything from us at a moment's notice?

There is something else here, and I'm going to say it although my fellow Jews will find it unpopular. The modern White Nationalist movement is not the same thing as the German Nazis of World War II. While it is true that there are anti-Semites wherever you go, and disproportionately among this population, my sense is that their core issue has nothing to do with eliminating Jews at all. Rather, they are questioning why exactly it is that every other population seems to be privileged, while the celebration of Western culture, of Whiteness itself, has become a kid of sin.

Is it a coincidence that the Obama administration for eight years fomented the rise of radical Islamic terrorism; disregarded actual radical Islamic terror attacks and refused to call them what they were; steadfastly looked the other way on illegal immigration in so many ways; yet insisted, over and over again, that "White extremists" were the problem?

When President Trump ran for office, it was the Democrats who insisted that anyone -- like me, the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors -- who supported Trump was a Nazi. They insisted this and even paid people to get violent at Trump rallies, as documented by Project Veritas, because the Trump movement itself didn't provide any juice for the narrative.

Is it the "Nazis" who have been calling in threats to Jewish community centers nationwide these past few months, or is it somebody else trying to make the Jews afraid?

One has to ask these questions. At the President's inauguration, was it the so-called "Nazis" who were smashing in windows and setting fires in the streets? Or was it the paid anarchists who want to create continuous chaos and strife, all in the name of "tolerance," "love," and "diversity"?

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't it Richard Spencer, a White Nationalist walking peacefully in the street during the Inauguration, who got his face punched in by a demonstrator--not the other way around?

Has it not been the violent protesters (many paid, I think) who have called President Trump a "fascist" and in so doing have denied free speech to anyone who disagrees with their agenda?

Did Nazis ever threaten to overthrow the administration of President Obama? I don't recall that at all. And yet Madonna, a member of the music industry elite, talks about wanting to "blow up the White House" while Sarah Silverman, also an elite member of Hollywood, talks in very similar terms. 

Why are so-called feminists marching with the radical Islamist Linda Sarsour, who would have them flogged under Sharia law for not covering up as men dictate?

Here is how this looks to me: There is a very radical agenda afoot here, very well-financed and skilled with the tools of propaganda. 

The people who are promoting this agenda have sold it through-and-through to a massive number of people, innocent and good Americans, who only want to pour out their goodness to others in the world less fortunate. 

These good people decry any form of hatred and pride themselves on their tolerance.

What they need to see, or at least need to question, is the incongruity between the stated ideals being presented to them, and the actual facts on the ground. 

Good people need to think a lot more critically about who is trying to motivate them to do which thing, and whether something more surreptitious is going on beyond the appearance of "join us and help people."

It says in Isaiah 66 that at the end of time, all good God-fearing people will join together and serve the Lord as one. I believe we are headed very much toward that day.

What is required at this time is for good people to take their biases and blinders off. Let's call out hatred for what it is. Let's not allow bad people to get away with it.

But for God's sake, let's also stop scapegoating people who are not the real enemy, because we have been brainwashed to believe that we must never go beyond what the mainstream media narrative tells and sells us through CNN, 24/7/365.


All opinions my own.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Digital Engagement As Customer Service

Exciting is what big brands do. But for the government, digital engagement needs to be about one thing and one thing only: providing outstanding customer service.
  • You aren't trying to grow "brand awareness."
  • You aren't trying to capture market share.
  • You aren't trying to build a brand premium.
No, what you ought to be doing is carrying out the mission, and digital engagement (a.k.a. "social media," although this term really covers everything to do with the online experience) is actually part of that -- not separate from it.

Within the government, for a lot of reasons, I sense that digital engagement has significantly shifted and that the focus is now far more on customer service than it is on content-sharing. As follows:
  1. Operational Focus, Not Branding Focus: For a long time, branding was a "hot topic" for agencies, principally because they felt like their "image" was "disjointed." At this point, after having worked for the government for more than a dozen years I think we have established that the image thing is not going to come together, and that the time and effort spent worrying about how you look is far less worthwhile than time and effort spent actually getting the job done well.
  2. Partnership Focus, Not Standalone Focus: Because the government is funded as a series of individual entities -- programs, offices, agencies, Departments -- because people want to keep their span of control -- and because executives are distinguished by the types of initiatives they can claim, the tendency has always been to stand up "your" program, fund it and grow it. However, in recent years there has been a massive shift towards partnership efforts, partly because money is tight but also because agencies have recognized that there is an additive effect (one might say "co-branding") when two or more agencies work on an effort together, or when there is public-private-academic investment in a worthy and profitable social goal. When it comes to digital engagement, the axiom is that you want people talking everywhere about information they got from a single source. So the fewer jumps and clicks to get authoritative data, the better: Partnership portals are an excellent opportunity to reduce the burden on the customer.
  3. Interoperability: For a lot of reasons, the government is moving towards the standardization of data such that multiple information repositories can be made to speak with one another. This is important because from a customer service point of view, the citizen often wants to find information that is in the government's possession, and they don't want to have to search in a million places to get to it. The focus should be on making it easy for people to find what they're looking for by ensuring that the data they seek can be "mashed up" from a variety of sources into a single searchable space.  
  4. Stamp of Authenticity: In a  virtual world, people look for information where they look for it, or where the search engine takes them. And it is therefore important to provide them with assurance that the data they are seeing is valid. Offering a code stamp that can be affixed to genuine government data is another kind of customer service that is inextricably bound with digital engagement.
  5. Video Demonstrations of Customer Service Scenarios: People nowadays do not read. They do however watch, they scan, they go to videos, and they absorb instructions well through instructional modules. If you have a form that you want people to fill out, or if you expect them to undergo a certain type of government process (e.g., and interview) having videos readily available online cuts down on the customer's confusion and anxiety and helps them comply with what's required.
  6. Instant Access To Customer Support: The concept of offering instant help through chat, artificial intelligence, and customer support is a given in private industry, but still challenging for agencies. These forums make it possible for the busy and impatient taxpayer to get the help they need without a hassle and are also a necessary ingredient in the totality of a digital engagement strategy, both when it comes to employees and when it comes to outside inquiries.
  7. Customer Feedback: It goes without saying that people should be able to rate the quality of their experience with the government in a public, transparent way. This incentivizes agencies to offer better service and builds up trust and accountability with the public -- a "win-win" on both sides. While some may worry that people will take the opportunity to "trash" the agency, it is more likely that such "trolls" will only annoy other users, and given the opportunity such users can "upvote" or "downvote" others' feedback, as well as comment on it; official answers can also be marked with a star or similar icon.
The roles associated with the new digital engagement environment are similar to the traditional one: high-level sponsor, executive (leader/strategist), digital lead (oversight and team manager), contracting and project managers, web and social media experts, writers and designers, and administrative support. Ideally, also one would have an individual on staff fluent in taking both qualitative and quantitative metrics from customers so that progress towards clearly articulated goals can be assessed.


All opinions my own.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

We Must Be Willing To Ask The "Crazy" Questions

  • He first became widely known during the election, for being fired from the Huffington Post as a contributor when he wrote an article about Hillary Clinton's health.
  • He has been in the forefront of researching the widely controversial scandal known as “Pizzagate.”
  • He is also an advocate for investing in bitcoin and gold currency to avoid the potentially disastrous consequences of what he believes may be a forthcoming currency crash.
Below are my notes on his video from today, February 1, 2017. It is his most important video to date, because he ties together a variety of threads that have so far mystified me and I presume many other people. I am therefore sharing my notes on it with you – most of which is directly quoted.

Please note the following as you read:
  • Seaman states repeatedly that these are not his personal views, but rather that he is sharing with the viewer what he has learned.
  • He also notes that he has endured repeated character attacks and harassment for sharing this research.
  • He believes this only lends further credibility to fact that there is something here, something that might go much deeper than initially expected.

Here are the basic themes Seaman covers in today's video, which he states can freely be mirrored by others, re-uploaded, and so on. He notes that he is not doing this research for the money.

  1. Anthony Weiner
    • On January 31, the Wall Street Journal and others reported that federal authorities are considering child porn charges against Anthony Weiner.
    • His laptop reportedly has 650,000 emails that are critical in unraveling the pedophile ring outed by Pizzagate revelations.
  1. Hillary Clinton network occult references – leaked emails.
    • Hillary Clinton Wikileaks emails – reference to sacrifice to Moloch – pagan god. People used to make sacrifices to Moloch to appease this pagan entity.
    • John Podesta emails – hundreds of references to pizza – unusual that he is receiving invitation to attend spirit cooking hosted by Marina Abramovic, whom many consider to be a Satanist.
  1. Illuminati - “Worship The Light” - Satan/Lucifer
    • Traces lineage back to before Biblical times. Consider themselves pre-Adamite race. Pre-Biblical race.
    • Believe they came from another planet. That they're a rival race known as homo capensis, not human beings, significantly higher intelligence.
    • Over time, their bloodline, through breeding with human beings has been diluted.
    • No special properties or powers. Hillary Clinton just a human being.
    • They do not worship the Judeo Christian or Muslim God. They worship Lucifer. Attempts to link it to Judaism or Islam are misinformation to keep people off the scent of what they actually believe.
    • They consider the Biblical tale of Noah's ark to be a tale of their extermination. They believe that God was summoned to wipe out their race, which has DNA which is non-terrestrial. They consider the Noah's ark story to be an act of genocide against their species by the Judeo Christian God. That's why they hate Christians, Jews and Muslims because they don't like anyone who worships God. It's one of the things they hate most.
    • They have a very different view of the stories in the Bible because they believe Satan has enlightened and protected them throughout time. They see God as something which tried to exterminate them and failed. So this is why they are anti Judaism, anti Christianity, and anti Muslim. This is why they want to see innocent Muslims and Christians suffering, because they hate the belief in God.
  1. Pizzagate
    • Researchers puzzled by photos. Not just fetishizing children, but also cheeky, seemingly mocking the rest of us, ha ha ha, so funny, we're victimizing you, we're preying on you and you don't even realize it.
    • Although it's kind of a tangent, some looked into accounts of young Hollywood celebrities and found unusual level of interest in pizza iconography.
    • So what is really going on here? What is all this stuff? Pizza is code language for children, child sacrifice, child abuse. Use it as signal that they're in on the joke. Different species, enlightened, that Satan protects and awards them riches and financial and political success.
    • They believe human beings are inferior species that needs to be depopulated. Pushing GMO foods, high level of corn (contains pesticide), not something humanb eings should be consuming, have us all on high fructose corn syrup, soft drinks, candy – want us consuming junk food because they want a weaker population.
    • They want war and strife because they do want to depopulate the planet before we use up its resources. They want to turn it into an illuminati paradise, apparently, where there are far less human beings alive, but the human beings around are slaves and indebted servants to the Illuminati master race.
  1. Antarctica
    • Understands that later on this year, members of this cult, members of this cabal, will use their contacts within the mainstream media to push one of the biggest false flags of all time. They are going to push for the notion that we have attained disclosure, that aliens exist.
    • They are going to push for something like that to drive the public crazy and hopefully distract the public from these pizzagate concerns. They think that the revelation of other species will be enough to distract the American people. Tend to disagree, but what I've heard is that they're going to focus on Antarctica.
    • There's been some weird discoveries over there, possibly some architecture that changes our understanding of human history.
    • If you wonder why some top U.S. politicos have been going down to Antarctica recently, the official explanation is that they're checking out the ice sheet (that it's melting). You can do that by checking out photos or through their aides. It's definitely not the most exciting place for Newt Gingrich or for some of these senators to be visiting. There aren't exactly great steakhouses and great cigar rooms down in Antarctica, so why are these DC politicos going down there. There will be a focus on some incredible discovery, something found in Antarctica.
    • Not saying the claim is necessarily bogus, but it's going to be a distraction from this Illuminati, this cult, this cartel of politicos and bankers which has existed continuously for at least 400 years and arguably much longer than that.
  1. Why They Harm and Kill Children
    • It's not purely sexual. They harm and kill children because they believe Lucifer and other demonic entities actually assist them when they make a sacrifice and that certain kinds of abuse unlock psychic energy.
    • So for example before passing a new big law or starting a war they will make a sacrifice.
    • But this stuff is apparently real, we don't know how far down the rabbit hole goes.
    • I suspect significant collusion with the media to make this sound like a joke for the past 30 years when it's rife in Hollywood, and it's rife in DC.
    • There was a story on Russian state television the other day (RT) about how this is starting to come out in Germany, weird and occult and sadistic practices at some of their military locations. Something closely tied to governments, people who believe in this crazy stuff and who consider themselves Illuminati, a rival race and who consider human beings inferior and a blight on the planet, want us in debt, powerless servants.
    • He thanks God for Wikileaks that we now know some of this stuff.
  1. Justice
    • There is a group that contains some top US government officials and officials from other Western governments that formed when they learned the full extent of this stuff. Basically they are pushing for immediate public disclosure, tribunals like they had at Nuremberg. They want these people hunted down and brought to justice.
    • This group includes top U.S. Government and top EU and UK officials.
    • Once they found out that there was something here, they decided that this will go on for no longer, this will no longer be a part of Western society, we're going to shine a bright light on it and we're going to bring justice to it.

In my opinion, you don't have to believe one word of this video at all. But it does help to put things that I personally am seeing into a framework that begins to make sense:

  • First, it is clear that there are those who actively seek to foment global unrest, civil war, racial divisions, and other kinds of strife. At every opportunity to make peace, they only seem to want...more fighting.
  • Second, it is clear that ordinary people are very well able to get along with each other regardless of their race, their religion, and their gender. And they want to do this. They want to live in peace, make a decent living, love their partners and children and grow old together. Nobody normal desires to go to war, and yet “somehow” there are always instigators whipping up tension between Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
  • Third, it is clear that our economy is shredding itself from the inside. Unemployment, underemployment, debt, homelessness, food insecurity, teenagers prostituting themselves for food (and pimping out their friends), rising levels of human trafficking, meager savings account, a fragile dollar and a manufacturing sector that has dramatically declined as versus other Nations all point to a crisis in the making.
  • Fourth, somehow, despite all the law enforcement resources that have been brought to bear against human trafficking, it still persists. Even the government has been lax in stopping its own workers from viewing child pornography on work computers. Given that most people have a strong negative aversion to such behavior, this does not make sense even on the level of instinct.
  • Fifth, it seems that no matter how hard one tries to search for the hidden truths that seem to underpin our society, it is impossible to get a straight answer. If the truth is obscured, then someone in power wants it obscured, and this much is supported by the many people who have died under suspicious circumstances while researching matters that threaten those in power.

On a broader level, when you understand “Pizzagate” in the “big picture” it seems this scandal is not at all about crazy conspiracy theorists with nothing better to do than obsess about pizza shops. Rather it is about the growing awareness that our planet is indeed in great danger.

It is also a hopeful story in that there are at least some people committed to the search for not just truth, but justice.

The only way out of any mess, I believe, is to commit ourselves to a rigorous process of inquiry that leaves no stone unturned and no theories off the table. Particularly today, we have a great deal at stake. I do believe that we must save ourselves from the few bad people who seek to control, dominate, enslave and deceive the innocent masses who trust them.

Thank you to the selfless researchers who risk their very lives in the quest to save the rest of us.

All opinions my own.