Hufschmid's main page
My previous comments

Does anybody really do murder rituals?

Are they occurring in Hampstead, London, UK?

11 June 2016

The image to the right is a portion of a painting that depicts Jews draining Christian children of their blood and cutting them into pieces for a religious ritual. The painting was inspired by the arrest of some Jews in 1710 in Poland who were accused of doing this. The Jews claim that the accusations were false, of course. (A larger portion of the painting is farther below.)

Are murder rituals really happening?
The Jews have been accused of conducting murder rituals for many centuries. The illustration below, from 1493, shows the Jews draining a Christian child of his blood.

Years ago I put a link to a video (here), of a Jewish woman in Chicago, Vicki Polin, who claimed on the Oprah television show in 1989 that murder rituals were occurring in her family, some of whom were in influential positions of Chicago. Unfortunately, neither the police nor the journalists had any interest in investigating the issue and determining whether she was telling the truth.
Also in 1989, the Australian division of the 60 Minutes television program broadcast an interview with a young British girl name Teresa who claimed that she had witnessed the ritual killings of animals and people, and that she had been abused. Unfortunately, none of the British authorities were interested in investigating her accusations.

That television program is on the Internet in two pieces. Here is part one, and here is part two.
During the past year, these type of accusations have been getting a lot more attention, but this time they are coming from two young children, Gabriel and Alisa Dearman, who live in Hampstead, England. These two children claim their father, Ricky Dearman, is the leader of a cult, and that their school was involved with the cult.

Here is a police interview with Alisa, and here is a police interview with Gabriel, and here they are in a parking lot. Their mother recorded this video to explain her side of the issue.
Alisa and Gabriel interviewed in a parking lot.
The children claim that this cult would regularly have sex with the children at the school, and that they would kill babies during rituals, drink their blood, and eat some of their flesh. They said most of the babies were provided to the cult by the British government's social services, and that some babies were drugged and delivered by courier services, such as DHL.

Scotland Yard investigated the children's accusations and came to the conclusion that the children were forced into making false accusations because they were tortured and given drugs by their mother, Ella Draper, and her boyfriend, Abraham Christie.

People are referring to this case on the Internet as the Hampstead cover-up, or the Hampstead hoax, depending upon whether the person believes the children or Scotland Yard.

This case is difficult to resolve because the only witnesses are young children. Should we believe two children? Or should we believe hundreds of intelligent, respectable adults in Scotland Yard, the media, the schools, and the police departments?

The difficulty of resolving this issue becomes more apparent when you add more detail to those questions, like this: should we believe Scotland Yard, the journalists, and other authorities, who are lying to us about the creation of Israel, the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, the attack on the USS Liberty, the Holocaust, the world wars, and hundreds of other issues, and who have repeatedly ignored complaints of pedophilia, such as with Jimmy Saville, and who have also terminated investigations of pedophilia, such as in this case? Or should we believe the children and their mother, who have nothing to gain by making such outrageous claims?

If you thought Shirley Temple was a good actress...

Gabriel and Alisa provided a lot of video interviews with the police and other people. The authorities want us to believe that these children are acting, and that Ella Draper and her boyfriend planned this incredible scam, and then spent months or years torturing the children, putting them on drugs, and making them rehearse the interviews.

Movies are filmed in short segments partly because the actors cannot memorize hours of dialogue. Those two children can produce hours of testimony without making mistakes, and without stuttering, giggling, or hesitating.

Everybody who has tried to direct a play in which the actors are children, or who has tried to get children to behave properly at the dinner table, has noticed that it is difficult to control the behavior of young children. Ella Draper deserves an award for being the greatest director of children that the world has ever seen.

If the children are telling the truth...
Before we believe the authorities, we ought to consider the possibility that the children are telling the truth because - if they are - it would explain a lot of mysteries.

If the children are telling the truth, that means a lot of British government officials, policemen, journalists, teachers, doctors, and other important people are involved with this cult, and that means there will be thousands of terrified government officials, journalists, doctors, and other people, and we can be certain that they will put a phenomenal amount of effort into making the children and their mother appear to be liars, or to kill them, or to have them arrested. It will be a very unfair battle. This would explain why there is such intense anger towards these two children and their mother, and why the police are so desperate to have them arrested.

If the children are telling the truth, it would provide an explanation for how Jimmy Saville got away with pedophilia for decades, even though lots of people knew about it. And it also provides an explanation for why the British government refuses to consider the possibility that Jimmy Saville was a member of a pedophile network.

We should consider that a British man is telling the truth when he claims that when he was a child, he and about 15 other boys were abused by a pedophile network that consisted of high-ranking British military and government officials, and that they killed at least three boys. And there is a Scotland Yard detective who claims that his investigation into a pedophile network was shut down by the Blair administration.

It should be noted that Gabriel and Alisa claim that women were involved with this cult. Therefore, it would be foolish to assume that a woman in the government, media, or police departments, who denies the existence of this cult, or who denies knowledge of Jimmy Saville's pedophilia, can be trusted simply because she is a woman.

Gabriel and Alisa can explain why so many cases of pedophilia are never investigated, or terminated, and why so many women in the government show no interest in investigating these cases. The police and journalists will investigate pedophilia only if the criminals are not members of their network.

If the children are telling the truth, we should re-examine the photos from the Rothschild parties. These two children can explain some of the bizarre aspects of those parties. For example, the photo below shows the decorations in the center of one of the dinner tables. If you were invited to a party, and your dinner table had those decorations, would you be impressed?

The doll in the center of the table has had some of its body parts cut off, similar to the children in the painting below, which depicts the crimes that Jews were arrested for in 1710.

Gabriel and Alisa claim to have been forced to dance around the skulls of babies, so perhaps that doll head with a hole in its forehead is symbolic of the cutting off of their heads and the removal of the brains so that they can use the skull in ceremonies.

Incidentally, who is the source of the photos from the Rothschild party? As I warned readers in previous documents, the people who are involved with a crime network will appear to be the most talented crime investigators because they will be able to provide information that nobody else knows of. Therefore, be careful about trusting the investigators who provide important information about a crime unless they can provide a sensible explanation for how they got that information. For example, the photo above comes from a website that claims to be exposing crimes, but in reality it is diverting attention away from Israel and Jews and onto the bankers, the Bush family, and the New World Order.

In the painting below, the child laying on the table at the upper left corner is being killed. I suppose the small child at the bottom right corner is the next child to be sacrificed. The decorations on the dinner table at the Rothschild party depict a scene similar to that in the center of the painting in which a child has had some of its limbs cut off.

Above the dead child on the floor are three Jews are holding a barrel, with what appears to be a child inside. A fourth Jew seems to be collecting blood from that child.

If the children are telling the truth, they are exposing only the tip of an iceberg. For example, how could it be possible for the British government to provide the cult with babies if this network was tiny and independent? And how could it be possible for drugged babies to be shipped domestically and internationally through such courier services as DHL without a lot of people being involved, and in different nations?

There are also accusations that the cult was filming some of the sex and killings and selling them as "snuff films". How could they get away with that unless this operation had the protection of police organizations?

Gordon Bowden claims to have investigated some businesses for fraud, and he discovered a phenomenal amount of fraud, and that there were connections to government officials, the 1991 Desert Storm war, and the Hampstead case. The most interesting remarks start about 10 minutes into this interview, and go on for about 12 minutes. Three of his remarks:
• at 11:40 "massive fraud, which is linked to the Labour Party"
• at 15:20 "a massive link to Zionism"
• at 17:00 "the biggest organized crime system in the world"
He claimed that everything he uncovered is easy to see, but his explanation for why the police won't do anything about it is:
"As I said to the police officers, the evidence is there, if you've got the courage, you'll be breaking down the biggest organized crime system in the world. But they won't have the courage because they operate with commanders above them who are Freemasons. I don't want to go into that because then you become classed as a conspiracy theorist."
At 22:40 he also says that he gave the information to the police and government, but they will not do anything about these crimes because "it will lock up Tony Blair, David Cameron, and the rest of the cronies who have had this information, and they have been blackmailing each other for many years."

He believes the "Freemasons" at the top of the police and government hierarchy are preventing investigations, but is it accurate to blame "Freemasons"? Or would it be more accurate to blame "Jews"?
The image to the right was the logo of a Freemason group in Britain. Can you see the Jewish star behind the Mason logo?

I mentioned these peculiar logos in my Masquerade Party #3 video. Some of the organizations changed their logos, perhaps in response to my video, but don't let that fool you into thinking that Jews are no longer hiding in the background of those organizations.
If the children are telling the truth, they provide credence to Vicki Polin's accusations, and to the accusations from the Middle Ages that some Jews kidnap children and kill them during bizarre religious rituals, and then drink their blood. For example, Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales 600 years ago, and it has a poem about Jews kidnapping a Christian child and killing him for one of their religious rituals.

The Jews expect us to believe that they have been accused of disgusting crimes for centuries by every nation they have lived in simply because everybody in the world is anti-Semitic, but consider if an individual person were to receive as many accusations and evictions as the Jews.

For example, imagine that a Chinese man gets married to a woman, and after a few months she throws all of his possessions out into the street and accuses him of kidnapping and killing some of the neighborhood children for use in idiotic rituals. Since she also writes poetry, she writes a poem about his killings. He insists that he is innocent, and that she is anti-Chinese.

Later he gets a job, but he is fired after a few months because his employer complains that he was running a pornography operation when he was supposed to be working. He insists that he is innocent, and that his employer is anti-Chinese.

A few months later he gets married again, but his new wife soon throws his possessions onto the street and complains that he was stealing money from her. He insists that the accusations are false, and that she is anti-Chinese.

Then he gets another job, but after a few months he is fired, and his employer complains that he was running gambling operations. He insists that he was innocent, and that the employer is anti-Chinese.

Then he gets married again, but after a few months his wife throws his possessions onto the street and complains that he was involved with ritual killings of some of the neighborhood children. She is an artist, and she creates a painting that depicts him draining the children of their blood and cutting them into pieces to eat. He claims to be innocent, and that her painting is anti-Chinese.

Imagine this situation occurring year after year. Eventually even the stupid people would suspect that at least some of the accusations are based on real events, and that none of the people are anti-Chinese.

If the children are telling the truth, we should consider that Hollywood is the California division of this cult. Ricky Dearman moved from England to California to become an actor. There is not much information about his life, but he was provided with at least one acting job. What made him think that he could be make a living as an actor when there is so much competition?

Another of the "boy friends" of Hollywood director Bryan Singer. Is he just "friends" with the boys? Should the police investigate pedophilia and murder in Hollywood? Or should they focus on Bill Cosby's antics with women?

We should consider the possibility that his cult is as international and Jewish as Gordon Bowden's investigation has suggested, and that many of the people in Hollywood are involved. Perhaps Ricky Dearman got to know people in Hollywood because of their involvement with pedophilia and ritual killings.

Corey Feldman recently made more remarks about the problem of pedophilia in Hollywood, although he continues to be vague and evasive. (I mentioned his earlier remarks in 2011 here.) We ought to consider the possibility that the pedophiles that Corey Feldman is refusing to identify are part of the same crime network that Gabriel and Alisa are exposing.

We also ought to wonder if Roman Polanski is being protected by a Polish division of this network. Is that why the Polish government refuses to extradite Polanski? Who in Poland is interested in protecting Polanski from extradition?

If the children are telling the truth, then we have an explanation for the mystery I mentioned in a previous file; specifically, why would the British government want to waste their time discussing whether they should ban Donald Trump from Britain?

The British government claims that they are trying to protect Britain, but if these children are telling the truth, then many – perhaps most – of the British government officials are involved with this crime network, and Donald Trump may not be a member of this network, and that would explain why there are so many British government officials who are terrified that Donald Trump might become President of America.

If this network is as international as it appears, then it would also help to explain why there is so much fear of Donald Trump among government officials in nations besides Britain.

If the children are telling the truth, they provide support for a remark I made in an earlier file, namely:
A Jew should be assumed guilty of whatever he accuses somebody else of.
The Jews accused the Nazis of making lampshades out of human skin and soap from their fat. Why would they accuse the Nazis of those things rather than something that is more typical during a war, such as murder, theft, or rape? After listening to those two children, I suggest we consider the possibility that the Jews conceived of those accusations because Jews have been doing that for centuries.

Today soap is so plentiful and inexpensive that the Jews have no need to make it, but centuries ago they may have been kidnapping children for soap, meat, leather, blood sausages, and other items.

Have you heard of the movie Soylent Green? Who came up with the concept of a government that is secretly killing people and feeding other people with their dead bodies? Gabriel and Alisa claim that the cult was eating babies, and that some restaurants in the area were using some of the flesh from the babies. This leads me to wonder, was the movie Soylent Green based upon what the Jews have actually been doing?

As I have mentioned in other documents, many Hollywood movies and TV shows seem to be based on reality, but twisted a bit so that it is not obvious. One of the best examples is the television show, The Invaders, in which a group of aliens is infiltrating our governments, media, police, military, and other organizations, in order to take control of our society.

The 1991 Desert Storm war got started partly because of the accusations that the Iraqi soldiers were tossing babies out of incubators and killing them. Who came up with that concept? If we could see all of human history accurately, we might find that Jews have been kidnapping and killing babies for centuries, and that their familiarity with killing babies caused them to conceive the idea of blaming the Iraqi soldiers of doing it. Furthermore, they may have been instigating fights for centuries by making these type of accusations.

If the children are telling the truth, we ought to take a closer look at the men who show an abnormal interest in butts and anal sex. Gabriel complained that his father was regularly forcing large dildos into his butt, perhaps to stretch it open, and that the men would regularly have anal sex with him. Why would they want to have anal sex with a boy when they have girls available, and they also have wives? Who among us would choose to have anal sex with a young boy if we have those choices?

I think that one of the reasons this crime network has been getting away with their bizarre behavior for so many centuries is that many people dismiss the accusations as absurd because they cannot believe anybody would do what they are accused of doing.

If, prior to the 9/11 attack, somebody had told me that there were groups of married men having anal sex with their sons during orgies at a school, I would have dismissed it as unrealistic.

I can believe that a lonely, angry, mentally ill man might want to rape little boys, but why would a group of married men choose to have an orgy with their sons when they have wives? That seems as unrealistic as choosing to go outside to eat dirt when you have a nice meal at the dinner table. Even if a marriage was failing, I would have considered such behavior to be unrealistic.

As I mentioned in previous documents, some of the people who have been pestering me for years have an abnormal fascination with butts, fart jokes, and anal sex. And have you noticed how many hazing rituals and initiation ceremonies involve butts? For example, two Welsh guards were pressured into having some type of anal sex with one another, and at a high school in New Jersey, football players held a new recruit while one of them put his finger in the recruit's butt, and then put his finger in the recruit's mouth.

When you were a teenager, did you have any interest in having your friends grab and hold a teenage boy so that you could put your finger in his butt? What is different about the minds of the men who show fascinations with butts and anal sex? How many of these men get into leadership positions of our police, military, government, sports groups, and corporations?

If the children are telling the truth, we ought to wonder why people are involved with such crude rituals. If only one person in the world was involved with ritual killings, we might dismiss it as just one person's mental problems, but if Gabriel and Alisa are correct, this is a worldwide network.

Furthermore, Gabriel and Alisa say their father was involved, and his mother, and her mother, which means that these practices are being passed on from generation to generation, and that women are involved almost as much as men. How far back in their ancestry does this behavior go? How many other families are involved with these practices? How and when did these families get involved with these practices?

Finally, Teresa, who was interviewed for the Australian 60 Minutes television program, said that her grandmother was the person taking her to cult be abused. How did her grandmother get involved? Was her mother involved, also?

Is every race of humans equally involved with these practices? Or are certain genetic groups more involved? Does this behavior seem to be due to genetic characteristics of certain races or families? Or do these people seem to be genetically the same as the rest of us and involved with these practices simply because they were raised on the belief that murder rituals and pedophilia are normal cultural practices? Or do they get involved with these rituals because they believe it will help to keep them young and healthy?

You might respond that nobody could be so stupid as to kill babies and drink their blood simply because their ancestors have done so, or because they believe they will remain young and healthy, but history has thousands of examples of people engaging in idiotic, dangerous, and violent practices, especially people who are stupid, ignorant, or mentally ill.
Even more amazingly, when people behave in terrible manners they are usually doing so to help themselves or other people, not hurt anybody. For just three examples:

• There are religious parents who give exorcisms or beatings to their children or spouses in order to help them find the truth, or get the devil out of their mind, or help them to find Jesus.

• There are people who like to torture themselves to show their devotion to their particular god, as in the photo to the right, which shows people participating in a parade to display their devotion.

• Every nation practices the policy that we can cure a criminal of his bad behavior by torturing him with jail, or beating him with a wet bamboo stick.

• Many people believe that they can prevent murders by having a death penalty and by killing the people who commit a murder.

Actually, our death penalty custom is not much more sensible than a Jewish murder ritual. Killing a murderer will prevent him from causing more problems for us, but it does not prevent future crimes. However, there are millions of people who believe that a death penalty is capable of preventing crime.

Differentiate between rituals and procedures

Ideally, we would have an authority of language to ensure our words have sensible meanings. I think it would be useful if children were taught to consider the word "ritual" and "procedure" as representing significantly different concepts. I think this will help children make better decisions on when they are following a ritual, and when they are following a procedure.

For example, when a business provides an employee with a list of instructions on how to operate a particular machine or assemble a particular product, he is given a set of instructions that have been carefully developed by the people in the business, and the business is capable of providing a sensible and detailed explanation for each of the instructions. The instructions are not arbitrary or random.

For example, when an employee is told to tighten some bolts in a clockwise direction with a torque wrench to a level of 44 foot-pounds (or Newton-meters, to those of you who use the metric system), it is because people did experiments and came to the conclusion that 44 provided the most optimum clamping force. They did not pick that number at random.

We should use the word "ritual" to describe a set of instructions that are lacking a sensible explanation. For example, when Jews swing a chicken around their head to be forgiven for their sins, they swing the chicken three times, not four times, or two times, or six times. Why three times? They have no sensible explanation for that.

Also, they swing the chicken above their head, not to their side, or between their legs. They do not toss the chicken into the air and catch it, either.

When we regard the words "rituals" and "procedures" in that manner, then we will notice an interesting difference between rituals and procedures. Specifically, rituals are noticeably different between one group of people and another, whereas procedures tend to be similar regardless of who practices them. Rituals appear to have been created at random.

For example, if an American business tells its employees to tighten particular bolts on a particular material item to 44 foot-pounds, we can be certain that if a Chinese company is producing a similar product, they are telling their employees to tighten the corresponding bolts to a very similar clamping force. The reason that procedures will be similar between societies and eras is because they are developed according to scientific experiments.

By comparison, rituals are senseless, and the result is that different people will create noticeably different rituals for the same purpose. For example, Jews swing chickens around their head to be forgiven from their sins, whereas Christians are more likely to get on their knees and pray to God to be forgiven. There is not much in common between those two rituals.

When children are taught to consider rituals and procedures in this manner, they can then be given exercises in passing judgment on which of our customs are rituals, and which are procedures. When children get into the habit of thinking of customs in this manner, they are likely to make better decisions on which customs to follow, and which should be updated to become more sensible.

Our death penalty, for example, shows signs of being a ritual, not a procedure, because there are lots of instructions on how people must conduct the death penalty, but none of the instructions have any sensible explanations, and the instructions differ significantly between one group of people and another, and between one era and another. Different states in America follow different death penalty procedures, also.

The death penalty is a senseless ritual with arbitrary rules; it is not a sensible procedure that people developed through careful study and analysis. Some death penalty rituals provide the criminal with a last meal, for example, and that last meal is different between different groups of people and eras. Each death penalty ritual also has a different method of killing the criminal.

The state of Ohio tried to execute Romell Broom in 2009 by injecting him with drugs, but for unknown reasons, they failed. After two hours of sticking him with needles and injecting him with drugs, they gave up, and he is still alive as of 2016.

When we compare the death penalty that societies follow to the manner in which businesses kill animals, plants, trees, and other creatures, we notice some very significant differences. Businesses want to accomplish the job as quickly and efficiently as possible. They don't kill animals with expensive and time-consuming firing squads, or a complicated sequence of drug injections, and they don't give the animals a last meal. They don't put blindfolds on the animals, either.

Furthermore, if an animal survives the execution, the businesses do not give up and put the animal back in its cage, possibly with serious physical or mental damage as a result of the failed execution. Instead, if the execution fails, they try again, and if there are a lot of failures, the management is likely to analyze the problem and find a way to improve the success rate of their procedures.

This brings us to another important difference between procedures and rituals. When rituals fail to accomplish their goal, the people following the rituals ignore the failure. When procedures fail to accomplish their goal, the people analyze the issue and try to improve the procedures so that they are more successful in the future.

Our technology has been improving throughout history because thousands of people have been looking for ways to improve the procedures that we use to create material items, but our governments, economic systems, marital practices, courtship activities, and other culture does not improve because every society promotes the philosophy that we should follow ancient culture regardless of its failure rate, rather than analyze culture and try to improve it.

Actually, many of our customs are becoming more irrational through the years as a result of businesses manipulating them for profit, and religions altering them in order to promote their particular religion. An example is that the diamond businesses have convinced women that they need diamonds. Businesses also ruin our culture by encouraging us to be passive voyeurs who watch other people engage in recreational events and social activities, and to spend our leisure time with our cell phones, rather than become active participants in life.

A child is considered intelligent when he asks his father about the procedures to fix a flat tire on a bicycle, but he is reprimanded if he asks his father why they pray to Jesus before they eat their dinner, or why he must give a diamond ring to a woman. Children are encouraged to improve the procedures that we use to make material items, but they are told to shut up and obey our religions, voting system, economic system, marital practices, holiday celebrations, and other social technology.

Our culture is full of idiotic rituals

What is the difference between:
• A person who kills a criminal because he believes the killing will prevent crime.
• A Jew who swings a chicken around his head and then kills it so that he can be forgiven for his sins.
• A person who kills a baby because he believes that drinking the baby's blood will help him remain healthy.
• A person who believes he can alter other people's behavior by sticking pins into voodoo dolls.

I would describe those type of practices as idiotic rituals, and I don't think anybody who believes in those type of rituals should be allowed in influential positions. We should set higher standards for our leaders. When we allow into leadership positions people who believe in practicing idiotic rituals, we are allowing crude savages to influence our lives and future, and they will put pressure on us to follow their particular customs regardless of how stupid they are.

In addition to people around the world following senseless rituals, people are following idiotic medical practices, also. For example, there are so many Chinese who believe that Manta Ray gills, rhinoceros horns, tiger penises, and other animal parts are aphrodisiacs or have magical medical powers that they are going to cause the extinction of those animals if the rest of the world does not do something to stop them.

In June 2016 I received a copy of Amazing Wellness in the mail, which is an advertisement for The Vitamin Shoppe. One of the articles is titled, "The Youth Hormone". It promotes human growth hormone as a way of remaining young, improving our mood, improving our sex drive, getting rid of wrinkles, and other wonderful benefits. The article creates the impression that this hormone is a magical fountain of youth. However, the people who believe that human growth hormone will keep us young are promoting a policy that is as stupid as the people who believe Manta Ray gills will cure our medical problems, or that swinging a chicken around your head is going to forgive you of your sins.

A few years ago some experiments at Stanford University showed that injections of blood from young mice can improve the health and life of older mice. This article claims that Kim Jong-Il would inject himself with the blood of healthy young virgins. Are there really people injecting themselves with the blood of younger people? If so, how is that practice any more sensible than the people who kill babies and drink their blood in an attempt to remain young?

I am not surprised to hear that replacing the blood of an older person with the blood of someone young and healthy would provide a temporary health benefit. The reason is simply because the younger person's blood will have more appropriate levels of vitamins, salts, hormones, oxygen, etc. However, the effect would not last very long because the older person's liver, kidney, and other organs would quickly restore the blood to its original, decrepit condition.

Although we cannot stop aging, it is possible for us to keep ourselves in optimum health. Unfortunately, because each of our bodies has subtle differences and defects, the lifestyle that will keep us in optimum health will be slightly different for different people. This means that each of us needs to analyze our body and experiment with our diet, sleeping patterns, water consumption, exercise programs, etc., rather than mimic somebody else.

The more unhealthy a person is, the more likely he will be to try something that has no sensible justification. For example, some cancer patients in America have traveled to Mexico to get cancer cures that are legal there but illegal in America, such as apricot pit extract. I don't know anything about cancer, but if apricot pits – or any of the cures for cancer – actually worked, we would have noticed it by now. There are millions of people trying various types of cures for cancer, and the fact that nobody has found a cure after decades of experimentation is evidence that we don't have cure.
Our doctors today treat cancer almost the same as the doctors of the Middle Ages. Modern doctors either cut the cancerous area out of our body, or they try to kill the cancer with chemicals or radiation. That is not curing cancer. That is analogous to a doctor treating mental illness or migraine headaches by cutting out a section of the person's brain. Cutting off a woman's breast is not curing her of cancer.

We don't have a cure for cancer, or for migraine headaches, mental illness, or thousands of other mental and physical disorders. However, none of the people who are suffering from these disorders want to hear that. They want to believe that there is a cure somewhere in the world, and all they have to do is find it. Many of these miserable people are willing to try a lot of crazy medical products.

There are millions of people around the world regularly practicing idiotic rituals that have a 100% failure rate, such as the death penalty, the punishing of drug dealers, and the eating of apricot pits to cure cancer. This is evidence that the human mind is so crude that it is willing to repeatedly follow a ritual that has never provided any benefits to anybody.

The irrational, senseless, and violent behavior of humans is proof that the human mind is just a large version of a monkey brain. And have you noticed how many people today either believe in witches or believe that they are a witch? And let's not forget that in the span of just a few decades, most women in Europe and America have been convinced by the diamond businesses that "diamonds are a girl's best friend". Giving a woman a diamond ring could be described as an idiotic and wasteful marital ritual, but millions of people are doing it, and they show no interest in looking critically at it or developing more sensible marital customs.

Considering that there are millions of people who believe in idiotic rituals, is it possible that some people's minds are so crude that they are practicing murder rituals simply because their ancestors did, or because they believe that drinking the blood, or having sex with children, will help them remain young and healthy?

You might respond that nobody is so stupid that they would follow a cultural practice as disgusting as a murder ritual simply because their ancestors did it, but human history has lots of examples of people following senseless cultural practices simply because their ancestors did.

The people who refer to themselves as "conservatives" are the best example of this problem. Many conservatives are intelligent, well behaved, honest, and pleasant, but their emotional characteristics are so similar to monkeys that they have a strong tendency to follow one another rather than think for themselves.

Conservatives in every nation are following idiotic cultural practices simply because their ancestors did. Rabbis, for example, circumcise boys and drink the blood that dribbles from the boy's penis, as in the photo below.
Circumcision could be described as a cruel and senseless ritual. There is no intelligent justification for circumcision, and there is no sensible justification for drinking the blood of a circumcised penis, but rabbis do it, and most of the American boys from my generation were circumcised, even though we are not Jewish. People are circumcising boys simply because they are mimicking one another, like stupid animals, not because they analyzed the issue and came to the conclusion that circumcision makes sense.

The Jews have lots of bizarre rituals, some of which involve blood and sacrifices of animals. For example, their Passover holiday is about slaughtering lambs and smearing the blood on the entrance to their home so that demons will "pass over" their home and go to somebody else's home.

Their idiotic ritual of swinging a chicken above their head and then killing the chicken is not much different from the killing of babies as described by Gabriel and Alisa. Also, according to some people, the Talmud permits sex with children. I don't have any desire to read the Talmud to verify that accusation, but there are lots of news reports of Jews having sex with children. Newsweek recently published an article with the title, Child Abuse Allegations Plague the Hasidic Community.

The Newsweek article claims that, "there is no evidence that child abuse is any more likely to occur in ultra-Orthodox schools than in public or secular institutions", which implies that this problem plagues all American schools equally. However, it doesn't seem to me that anything in this universe is distributed equally, so I doubt if child abuse is spread equally among all of the schools in America. I would bet that the abuse is worse at certain schools, perhaps the Jewish schools or Catholic schools. The only time something is distributed equally is when humans deliberately distribute it. The universe operates by random interactions, and that is not likely to result in equal distributions of anything.

If there was no secrecy, and if we had complete video surveillance of the human population for the past few thousand years, we might find that Jews have been practicing sex with children and sacrificing humans, chickens, and other animals for centuries, and possibly for thousands of years.

Some people might wonder why Jews would practice a custom that is illegal. We can see the answer to that question by looking at the attitude that Jews have, such as the Jew in the video (at this page) who was trying to smuggle diseased eucalyptus leaves into Australia. He told the customs official that Australia's laws are not his laws. (Incidentally, the Jew was not arrested.)

The Jews do not regard themselves as our friends, or as members of our society. They regard themselves as a superior race who are living among animals. Our laws do not apply to them. They have no inhibitions about spreading diseases among us, killing us, setting our forests on fire, or tricking us into starting wars.

You might wonder how a group of people can be so incredibly arrogant, but all societies and religions regard their group as superior. Humans are arrogant monkeys who boast about themselves and insult other people for having idiotic foods, clothing styles, and religions. The Jews are just a bit more arrogant than the rest of us.

All of us want to be a dictator

All of us have a craving to compete for the top position of the social hierarchy. We want to be the leader. Everybody, both men and women, are in competition to be important, and to tell other people what to think and how to live. We want to be respected, admired, and worshiped. We want to give orders to other people and be pampered by them.

When a male animal is low in the social hierarchy, he accepts his position and displays submission to the other males above him, and he does not expect the females to show much of an interest in him. However, once he becomes the dominant male, his attitude changes dramatically. He becomes a dictator who expects the other animals to show submission, and he expects the females to be receptive to him.

Humans have the same emotional characteristics. We have strong cravings to compete with one another for the top positions in the social hierarchy, and we regard the people who are at the top as our leaders, and we give them special treatment. Female humans are sexually titillated by the dominant males.

When a man is young and "ordinary", he will accept his position and be submissive to the men above him, and he will not expect the women to show much interest in him. He may not appear to be arrogant. However, if he rises up in the social hierarchy as a result of becoming wealthy or famous, then his attitude is likely to change dramatically. If he considers himself to be one of the leaders of society, then he will expect other people to be submissive to him and give him special treatment, and he will expect the females to be more receptive to him.

Crime networks can take advantage of this characteristic by sending pretty women to the men who believe that they are important. The man is likely to assume that she is one of the thousands of women who are attracted to him because of his high status, and that she is one of his many rewards for being important. If he follows his monkey-like emotions, he will have sex with as many women as the crime network sends to him, and that can provide the crime network with lots of opportunities to blackmail him, manipulate him, steal items from his home, or learn about what he is doing.

Women behave in a very similar manner, except without the sexual aspect. When a woman is low in the social hierarchy, she will accept her position, but if she becomes wealthy or famous, she is likely to think of herself as one of the high ranking members of society, and that can cause her to change her attitude and believe that she should get special treatment and pampering by people who are below her.

When a low ranking monkey does not display signs of submission to a high-ranking monkey, the high-ranking monkey reacts with anger in order to pressure the low ranking monkey into behaving submissively. Humans treat each other in the exact same manner. For example, when people who believe they are important are treated like an ordinary person by policemen, airline personnel, or retail store clerks, the important person is likely to get angry that he is not getting special treatment. If the important person does not have good control of his emotions, he may blurt out some angry remark to let the low ranking person realize that he is lower in the hierarchy. For example, he might say, "Do you know who I am?" That expression is the human equivalent of the snarling, growling, and slapping that the dominant animals use to control the lower ranking animals.

This website has a list of 12 celebrities who made such remarks, and here is a report about Ronnie Pickering, who made that type of remark but who is so non-famous that the newspaper had to explain who he was.

The hierarchy among humans is not as well-defined as it is with animals, so after a man wins an award, makes a lot of money, or gets publicity, it is easy for him to make the mistake of assuming that he has finally become important, and he will finally get special treatment by other people and sex with lots of women.

The celebrities who blurt out "Do you know who I am" are not displaying bizarre behavior. Rather, it is typical animal behavior. It is how animals control their hierarchy.

All humans and animals have this characteristic; it is not unique to celebrities. Remember that whenever you see a characteristic in a small number of humans, you can be certain that it exists in all other humans. The reason is because all humans are created from the same genetic pool. Each of us is unique, but our differences are subtle. Some people describe this concept as "a difference of degree, not a difference of kind".

The low ranking people who have never blurted out, "do you know who I am", may believe that they are less arrogant than the celebrities who have made that remark, but if every low ranking person had the opportunity to become rich and famous, we would certainly discover that many of them have trouble resisting the craving to yell that remark. We all want to yell that remark. The emotional craving to make that remark is a part of all human minds.

Our craving to be dominant was beneficial during prehistoric times because it inspired the men and women to struggle to do something that would impress the other people, such as create impressive tools, make impressive clothing, or become one of the best hunters. By struggling to impress one another, they developed useful products, and they stratified into a hierarchy with the most talented people at the top.

Today, however, this craving is not functioning properly. Our emotions want us to get to the top of the hierarchy, but our emotions do not care how we get there. During prehistoric times, people could become important only by impressing people with their talents, but in our large, complex societies, people can get to top positions of the hierarchy through a variety of destructive manners, such as cheating, blackmail, murder, inheritances, and gambling. People today can also rise to the top of the hierarchy by plagiarizing and "einsteining".

People can also become important today by marrying important people, winning idiotic awards, and selling products of no value but which have high popularity, such as the Pet Rock. A person can also become wealthy and famous from just one event, such as singing one popular song, or winning one popular sports contest, or acting in one popular movie.

Our emotions are no longer serving the purpose they evolved for. We need to exert some self-control and think more often. When we strive to be important, for example, we should ask ourselves, "Am I doing something useful? Or am I just wasting my life on a senseless activity?"

We also need to exert self-control so that we don't start believing we are more important than we really are. Our emotions are essentially looking for any excuse they can find to feel special, and the result is that whenever we win an award, make a lot of money, get a job with a fancy title, appear on television, or create a popular Internet video, our emotions will essentially jump up and down like an excited child, and yell, "Yes! I did it! I am now important! Everybody will now bow before me, and women will offer themselves to me!"

We should exert some self-control and remind ourselves that we are not as special as we like to believe, and we should not expect retail store clerks, policemen, airline stewardessess, or other people to give us special treatment, and we should not expect women to offer themselves to us.

Some people control their emotions by reminding themselves of remarks in the Bible, and some have tattooed biblical remarks on their body. If you enjoy challenges, try to control your emotions without using the Bible as a tool.

Conservatives are the most likely to follow idiotic customs
Humans and animals have a strong emotional craving to follow their leaders for a very important reason. Specifically, this characteristic allows the children of humans and animals to learn a lot of information quickly without schools, teachers, or tests, and without any understanding of what they are learning. By mimicking their parents and other adults, the children of both humans and animals quickly learn which foods to eat, how to eat them, where to sleep, how to sleep, how to find water, and how to make tools. The children of humans and animals rapidly pick up a lot of important information simply by observing and mimicking the adults.

It may seem as if the ducks below are merely "following" their mother, but they are doing more than that. They are learning how to be ducks by mimicking her. The reason baby animals cannot take care of themselves when they are raised by humans is that they cannot learn how to be an animal by mimicking humans.

This characteristic was vital during prehistoric times, but today we must exert enough self-control to analyze who we are mimicking. We must be concerned with who our leaders are and how they behave. We have to pass judgment on whether we are mimicking people who are truly providing us with guidance, or whether we are mimicking a group of savages, criminals, or mentally ill freaks.

Since each of us is genetically unique, some people have stronger cravings to mimic than others. We also have different types of education, and different intellectual abilities. The differences between us cause some people to be much more likely to mimic an idiotic cultural practice.

Although both liberals and conservatives are following idiotic customs, the conservatives seem to be much more resistant to looking critically at their culture and experimenting with sensible practices. This causes conservatives to be more likely to follow an idiotic practice.

In the areas of the world where education is at a lower level, or the people are more stupid or more like monkeys, we find people who are more willing to follow idiotic cultural practices. For example, a woman in Pakistan burned her daughter to death because she believed her daughter disgraced the family by not following the appropriate customs for marriage. This happened in June 2016, not the Middle Ages.

I am not aware of any parents in America and Europe who burned their daughter to death for violating our marital customs, but there is no shortage of examples of people in "modern" societies who are following idiotic practices, and doing so decade after decade.

Here is a news report about a waitress in Canada who was forced by her employer to wear high-heeled shoes. She complained that the shoes caused her toes to bleed, and that one of her toenails died and fell off, but her employer was more concerned with following established shoe customs than in analyzing the issue of whether the shoes were practical for waitresses. And here is a report of a woman in London who was sent home without pay for refusing to wear shoes with a heel that is between 2 and 4 inches. These are also recent events, not historical events from the Middle Ages.

The people in "modern" nations often ridicule the ignorant, uneducated people in Pakistan and other "Third World" nations for following crude cultural practices, but our cultural practices are not "sensible". It would be more accurate to describe our culture as "less idiotic".

Requiring women to wear high-heeled shoes, especially women who have to walk or stand as they work, such as waitresses, could be described as cruel, abusive, and idiotic. However, people are doing this in the "advanced" nations.

The reason people in every nation are willing to follow idiotic cultural practices is because we have a strong emotional craving to mimic one another. If our societies had appropriate leadership, then we would have leaders who regularly analyze our culture and look for ways of improving our clothing styles, shoes, holiday celebrations, courtship procedures, and economy. When the people mimic those type of leaders, they would be mimicking culture that is sensible, and which improves through the years.

Unfortunately, the type of people who are getting into top positions of society are not appropriate leaders for this modern world. They are better described as overly aggressive, selfish monkeys who want to dominate us, not provide us with guidance. They want to be wealthy and famous, not analyze society's problems and experiment with solutions. They want to feel important, not research culture and look for ways of improving our leisure activities, marriages, holidays, schools, or work environment. Our leaders want bigger mansions, not better train systems, recreational areas, and cities. They want statues of themselves, not beautiful parks, walkways, and bicycle paths.

The type of people who rise to leadership positions today are encouraging monkey-like behavior, such as the hoarding of material items; the fighting for status; the following of ancient customs; the blaming of our problems on other societies; and the practices of monarchies, inheritances, and special privileges.

Worse yet, our leaders do not encourage us to develop our talents and become active participants in society. They want us to be submissive, obedient slaves. They react to competition with anger or fear, like a monkey.

What is the difference between a British company that promotes high-heeled shoes for women and the Chinese who promote rhinoceros horns as a medical product? I would say that both groups are mindlessly following idiotic cultural practices that they picked up during their childhood.

In other documents I pointed out that every generation mindlessly follows the same policies for crime, even though the policies have a 100% failure rate. How is a man who repeatedly follows a failed policy for crime prevention behaving in a more sensible manner than a Chinese person who follows the practice of eating Tiger penises to improve his sex life even though that practice also has a 100% failure rate?

Some states in America have legalized marijuana, and there is no evidence yet that the people in those particular states are suffering as a result, but there are millions of people insisting that the proper way to deal with marijuana is to follow the drug policies of our parents, which is to punish the marijuana users and dealers. Those people continue to insist that legalizing marijuana will cause all sorts of trouble, even though there is no evidence to support their fears, and they continue to insist that we can stop marijuana use simply by making it illegal, even though that policy has a 100% failure rate.

The human mind doesn't care what the evidence shows. We have a strong craving to follow whatever culture we picked up as children, regardless of how senseless it might be. We do not want to think for ourselves, experiment with life, or look critically at our culture.

What is the difference between people who:
• insist on following the failed crime policies of their parents.
• drink the blood of babies because their parents did it.
• believe that crime will cease if everybody carries a gun.
• believe that having sex with children will help them remain young and healthy.
• believe that we must pray to Jesus before we go to sleep.

Because we are arrogant creatures, we have a tendency to boast about our culture and insult other people's culture, but if Gabriel and Alisa are telling us the truth, I suggest we use the ritual of killing babies as an example of how it is time for the human race to slap itself in the face and start looking critically at its cultural practices. In my opinion, a lot of the cultural practices of the modern world are just as idiotic as the ritual of killing a baby and drinking its blood.

Gabriel and Alisa are evidence that sex information does not harm children
Most Americans are paranoid that their children will be psychologically damaged if they are exposed to nudity or sex education. America allows businesses to titillate children sexually in advertisements, and we allow Hollywood and other businesses to promote alcohol, drugs, idiotic pranks, and other dangerous, risky, or obnoxious behavior, but Americans will not allow a child to see a mother breast-feed a baby, or see a woman's nipple, or to see any kind of sex act. Most Americans will not allow schools to teach sex information, either.

Gabriel and Alisa have been exposed to more types of sex acts and sex information than many adults in America, but they show no signs of damage from it. What is the difference between an American who believes that children will be harmed if they see a mother breast-feed her baby, and a man who believes that having sex with children will help him remain young?

I would say that both of them are believing whatever they want to believe; that they are mindlessly following idiotic cultural practices that they picked up during their childhood; and that they are refusing to look critically at their culture and experiment with improvements.

Children are not harmed by information about their bodies, sex, childbirth, digestion, or any other issue. The adults who believe they are protecting their children by keeping them ignorant about sex, digestion, childbirth, and other issues are not protecting their children. Rather, they are helping to keep their children ignorant, and that can lead to their children developing abnormal fascinations with the issues that they know almost nothing about.

The British government is not interested in evidence
It should be noted that much of what Gabriel and Alisa claim could easily be verified. For example, they claim that the adults would remove skin from the babies and make shoes from the skin. It would be very easy for the police to search the schools to see if there really are any shoes where the children claim they are, and then analyze the shoes to see if they are made from human skin or animal skin. Gabriel also claims that his butt hole would often bleed as a result of the sexual abuse, and Alisa claims to have had sex with lots of men and been given an abortion. How difficult would it be for doctors to determine if the children are showing signs of such extreme sexual abuse? The police could also analyze the areas where the children claim the babies were killed to see if they can find any evidence of blood, or the DNA of missing children.

After the 9/11 attack occurred, the FBI, Pentagon officials, and other government agencies began confiscating security videos and destroying evidence as fast as they could. Have you seen the video of the people at the Pentagon who were picking up and destroying evidence of whatever crashed into the Pentagon? The photo below is one frame from that video. We ought to wonder if Scotland Yard and the British police have also already destroyed as much evidence of the pedophilia and ritual killings as they could find.

Where does the crime network get the babies?
Gabriel and Alyssa believe that many of the babies were provided to the cult by the British government's social services. They believe the babies came from poor people who could not afford children, but we ought to consider the possibility that some of those babies were the retarded children of parents who could afford them, but did not want a retarded child.

The reason we should consider this possibility is because a crime network would be able to both make money and protect itself by offering the service of getting rid of retarded children, senile elderly people, and terminally ill people who want to die. For example, if a couple were to have a retarded child, somebody from the British social services could offer to put the child out of its misery to spare the parents from the burden of a retarded child. After the child was killed, they could tell the parents,
"We put your child to death. Remember, you agreed to have him killed, so you are involved with this, so you must help protect our network, or you are going to get in trouble, also. Euthanasia is a good cause, and you are protecting the British government, so don't feel guilty."
That blackmail scenario might seem ridiculous, but if you ignore the possibility that a crime network is looking for opportunities to blackmail people, you might get caught in one of their blackmail traps.

As I described in a previous document, blackmail is of no value unless the victim can be frightened. Therefore, crime networks that blackmail pedophiles are going to encourage society to hate pedophiles.

Likewise, if a crime network is benefiting from the disposal of retarded children or old people, they will want society to hate parents who kill retarded children and to hate people who practice euthanasia. This allows them to offer these services and then blackmail their victims.

“Sorry, I'd love to help, but it doesn't affect me or my family”

As I mentioned in an earlier file, I have heard Americans justify their apathy about the Mideast war on the grounds that the American military personnel who suffer from that war are volunteers, and if they don't want to suffer, they should quit the military.
Many people use that type of excuse to ignore the abuse of orphans, retarded children, and homeless people, and I suspect many people would use that same excuse to ignore the issue of murder rituals with babies. Specifically, they will say that the murder rituals do not affect them or their friends because the babies who are killed are usually the unwanted babies, not the babies of "normal" people.

However, everybody suffers when we ignore crime networks because these networks help their members get into top positions of our government, police departments, media, businesses, charities, churches, schools, and other organizations. They are filling our leadership positions with lunatics, homosexuals, pedophiles, murderers, religious fanatics, and mentally ill freaks.

We should not ignore a crime network simply because their victims tend to be unwanted people. That is as foolish as ignoring a fire that is raging in your city simply because it happens to be in somebody else's neighborhood.

The people who ignore crime networks are hurting themselves and their family members, but they either cannot understand this concept due to their ignorance or stupidity, or they are choosing to ignore it so that they can focus on titillating themselves with television, food, and material items. Regardless of why they behave in this awful manner, they are part of the reason that crime networks are thriving and getting control of our nations.

Learn from the 9/11 "truth movement"
You don't need to spend thousands of hours studying the documents and videos about the Hampstead case in order to get an idea of what the truth might be. Instead, apply what you learned about the 9/11 attack.

An important lesson to learn from 9/11 is that almost all of the 9/11 "truth seekers" are Jews or their cohorts, and they are not interested in exposing the truth. Rather, they provide us with some important information about the crime, but only to grab our attention. Their primary purpose for getting involved is to overwhelm us with information; influence the investigation; shift the blame from away from Jews; and confuse us with a variety of different theories.

Because each of us has slightly different educations, personalities, interests, and intellectual abilities, the Jews provide us with a wide variety of theories so that everybody can find something they like. They provide us with a smorgasbord of propaganda.

Another important lesson to learn is that many of the 9/11 truth seekers promote some truly idiotic theories in order to give conspiracy theories a bad image. For example, some of them claim that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with miniature hydrogen bombs. Dr. Judy Wood, PH.D., who was a professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech, claims that the towers were destroyed by "directed free-energy technology". She wrote a book about it, and it has hundreds of favorable reviews on Amazon, which is more evidence that a lot of the people who post reviews are merely trying to manipulate gullible people. Somebody even created this music video to promote Judy Wood.

By glancing at some of the documents and videos about the Hampstead case, you should notice the same pattern. For example, the video I provided a link to in which Alisa was interviewed by a policeman (this video) was posted by a man named Aaron Dover. He creates the impression that he wants to expose the abuse, but take a look at the other videos that he posted on his YouTube channel. Most of the videos are promoting the flat Earth theory, and a few videos promote other idiotic theories, such as that the World Trade Center towers did not have any floors, and that the people who jumped out of the World Trade Center buildings were inflatable dolls, not real people.

Aaron Dover posted several comments to the video of Alisa's interview. YouTube continually rearranges the comments on the videos, so you might find some different comments when you look, but the colored box below shows his most recent remark, as of 11 June 2016. Can you understand what he is doing?

Aaron Dover 1 week ago (edited)
A lot of the dead babies and foetuses that get shipped out go to these sickos, but many more go outside of our matrix prison to sickos who live in the hidden lands outside the flightzone matrix where our farmers live. That's right, you are FARMED and here is your farm, for the first time in human history, the walls are now visible. Flat Earth: They Live In A Hidden Place - Physical Matrix Revealed

...reupped to vimeo...

Aaron Dover starts by complaining about the “sickos”, which creates the impression that he is disgusted with the crimes. Then he promotes his video that tries to convince us that the Earth is flat. Can you understand what he is doing? He is following a damage control procedure that we could describe as:
1) Pretending to be an honest, innocent person who wants to expose crime and corruption.
2) Promoting idiotic theories to create the impression that the people who believe that Gabriel and Alyssa are telling the truth are mentally defective morons.
Years ago I posted this document to explain some of the reasons why criminals want to get involved with the investigation of their crimes, and I posted other documents, such as this, to show why Jews are involved with pretending to be Nazis and anti-Semites, so I won't go into those issues again. Instead, I will simply summarize what Aaron Dover is doing as a technique called "contaminating the punch bowl". It causes people to react as seen in the illustration below:

Whenever a bizarre event occurs, such as the 9/11 attack, the Boston marathon bombing, or the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, truth seekers appear from around the world to tell us what happened, and some of them provide truly idiotic theories, such as that the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers were holograms, or that the Boston bombing was a hoax and the people who claimed to be injured were actors.

The Hampstead truth seekers are behaving just like the 9/11 truth seekers, the Boston bombing truth seekers, and all of the others. I think their similarity in behavior is because they are the same group of people, and they are following the same procedures for damage control.

Some of the Hampstead truth seekers even provide theories that are as bizarre as "directed energy technology" and miniature hydrogen bombs. For example, the site hampsteadcover supports the official, government version that the children are lying, and they have this page that claims that Ella Draper, the mother of Gabriel and Alisa, and her boyfriend, Abraham, used telepathy to manipulate both the children and all of the adults who have been accused of crimes.

It is amusing to consider that if Ella and Abraham truly have such amazing telepathic powers, then instead of wasting their time creating a fake crime, from which they gain nothing but harassment from the government, media, and police, they could have used their powers to manipulate financial markets to become billionaires, or make the North Korean dictator give a speech and tell the truth about their nation, or manipulate Scotland Yard and the journalists into being honest and stopping the harassment.

If you wonder why people on both sides of this issue are promoting idiotic theories, it is because they are hoping that when we look into the issue, we will be overwhelmed by the idiotic remarks coming from both sides, and that we become so disgusted that we stop looking into the issue.

Five months earlier Aaron Dover posted a comment, (in the colored box below), in which he mentioned that he had been a student at the school where Gabriel and Alisa claim the abuse was taking place, although he does not claim to have seen any abuse or murder rituals. This should cause the police to wonder if he experienced the abuse as a child, but he grew up to enjoy it and participate in it rather than complain about it.

He provided a link to this interesting newspaper article that describes his arrest as a result of the police investigating the children's accusations. He was released after 10 days, but that does not prove that he is innocent. For all we know, he was arrested by an honest policeman, and then released by those in the crime network.
Aaron Dover 5 months ago
I would like to clarify that I am a witness to events in this case as I know some of the people involved personally, have contact with the same Camden "services" that were involved, and also I attended the school as did my siblings.

By coincidence I was walking towards Christ Church when I was suddenly apprehended by a police helicopter manhunt in 2013.

The plot thickens...


He posted several replies to that message about how the British authorities got him fired from his job and confiscated his house, and that he has fled Britain to get away from their abuse. He makes himself appear to be a victim of the brutal and dishonest British government and police.

Aaron Dover posted another comment five months ago, (in the colored box below), that encourages us to join his Facebook group. He appears to be an active, concerned member of society, rather than another apathetic sheeple. He appears to be a leader who wants to help us. Can you understand what he is doing?
Aaron Dover 5 months ago
If you are concerned by the widespread satanic cannibalism taking place across the UK with the full collusion of the authorities, please join the group Eaten Lives Matter on Facebook.

This trick of encouraging us to join their "truth groups" is in widespread use among the "9/11 truth seekers". They don't want us to be independent, or to form our own organizations. They want us to be submissive members of their organizations.

I have referred to this technique in other documents as the Pied Piper trick in which a Jew leads gullible people into a "Goy Pen" where the Jew can control the information that the people are exposed to and provide them with propaganda. This also allows the Jew to observe the people to find out what they know and what they are doing.

Can you see the damage control?
The video of Gabriel being interviewed by a policeman that I provided a link to (this video) was posted by a man named Desmond During. As with Aaron Dover, he promotes the typical Jewish propaganda about the Illuminati, Satan, and religion that we find the 9/11 truth seekers posting. Desmond During appears to be of African descent rather than a Jew, but some Africans believe that the original Jews were black Africans, and he might be one of them. On his Google plus page, his tagline is:
Obedience is better than sacrifice - Yahushua Hamashiach is the Saviour of the World - Repent and accept his instruction.
In case you did not know, some Jews insist that "Yahushua Hamashiach" is a more accurate translation of the person the Christians refer to as "Jesus Christ".

The video of Ella Draper's statement that I provided a link to (this video) was posted by Lisa Vunk, who describes herself as "a Spiritual Rainbow Warrior GodDess of the Light who wields a mighty sword of Truth & Justice here to Serve in the Revolution of Love." Her description of herself reminds me of the light workers, star seeds, and indigo people who are involved with the 9/11 and other truth movements.

I have skimmed through only a few of the hundreds of documents and videos about the Hampstead case, and I see the same pattern that I see with the 9/11 attack. Specifically, regardless of whether the "truth seeker" is supporting the children's accusations or the government's explanation, they appear to be Jews or their cohorts, and they promote the same propaganda that we find in the other "truth movements". Also, many of the 9/11 truth seekers are Hampstead truth seekers, such as: whistleblower-kids-exposing-alleged-pedophile-ring-schoolchurch-need-help p=111712 hampsteadmedicalreportconfirmsabuse11mar15

They all provide some useful information in their videos and documents, but they mix it with propaganda or religious nonsense, and they link to one another's websites so that if you click their links for more information, you waste your time switching from one propaganda site to another.

Can you distinguish between a book club and a Goy Pen?
Although I and other people exposed the Pied Piper trick many years ago, the Jews continue to use it on a regular basis. For example, in January 2015, Mark Zuckerberg began a book club to encourage us to read books. This was just one of many articles that promoted the 23 books he wants us to read in one year.

A lot of people don't know or admire Zuckerberg, so to influence some of them, in November 2015, journalists provided us with articles about the 17 books that Bill Gates suggests that we read. Last month, May 2016, some journalists told us of the five books Bill Gates suggested we read during the summer of 2016.

Gates, Zuckerberg, and the journalists who promote the reading of books appear to be concerned citizens who want us to become more educated, and to become better people, but they are doing this to fool people into exposing themselves only to certain information and authors.

Before the Internet, the Jews had control over the information that we were exposed to because they controlled the newspapers, television news, book publishing, and other media, but they cannot control the Internet, so all they can do today is try to fool us into voluntarily reading the books that the Jews approve of.

The Jews are trying to fool us into putting blinders on ourselves, and looking at only what the Jews want us to see.

There is nothing wrong with a person suggesting a book to read, but you should ask yourself,

"Is he really making a suggestion? Or he is trying to manipulate me?"

If you don't make wise decisions on these types of issues, you might ignore the beneficial material and focus on propaganda.

A final example of the Pied Piper trick can be seen when Forbes and Time magazine announce the most important people in the world. Those magazines do not encourage us to discuss the issue of who is contributing something of value to the world. Instead, they tell us what to think. They take advantage of our natural resistance to thinking and our desire to follow whoever is in a leadership position.

For the past six years, Forbes has announced that Angela Merkel is the world's most "powerful" woman, but referring to somebody as "powerful" doesn't tell us anything of value about them. Instead, it is a word that implies that the person is high up in the social hierarchy, which stimulates us into getting on our hands and knees and admiring the person.

It makes sense to use the word "power" in descriptions of engines and human bodies because we can measure the energy output of an engine or a person's body. It is sensible to describe an athlete or an engine as producing more power than another athlete or engine, but it makes no sense to describe Angela Merkel as powerful.

Forbes would undoubtedly respond that their article clearly explains how they judge a person's "power". In their article they explain it in one sentence:
"four metrics were used: money (either net worth, company revenues, or GDP); media presence; spheres of influence; and impact, analyzed both within the context of each woman’s field (media, technology, business, philanthropy, politics, and finance) and outside of it."

To judge people according to how much money they have is idiotic. Shirley Temple, Michael Jackson, and some other entertainers made more money as children than most adults make during their lifetime, but does that mean those children were more powerful than most adults?

To judge people according to their "media presence" is especially idiotic because the Jews are restricting publicity to the people that they approve of, and government officials always get lots of publicity regardless of whether they are beneficial to the world.

And what does it mean to judge somebody by his "sphere of influence" or "impact"? We could say that entertainers, athletes, and religious goofballs have the largest spheres of influence and impact. The Pope has influence over tens of millions of people around the world, but is that because he is more "powerful" than the rest of us?

Referring to Merkel as "powerful" is a trick to titillate people's emotions and fool them into admiring a woman who would never be considered admirable unless we were repeatedly told that she is admirable.

Time magazine referred to Merkel as "Person of the Year" in 2015, which is just a variation of that trick. The Jews are trying to fool us into admiring the people they want us to admire, rather than encouraging us to discuss the issue of who deserves our admiration. They don't want us to think, do research, or discuss issues. They want us to be submissive sheep who follow their suggestions. They want to manipulate us, not educate us or inspire us.

Another example of how they want to manipulate us is that they encourage us to feel sorry for some people and hate others. For example, in their article in which Merkel is described as "person of the year", they insulted Germany with such crude remarks as "Germany has spent the past 70 years testing antidotes to its toxically nationalist, militarist, genocidal past." Donald Trump is attacked by journalists for remarks that I would describe as less crude than that.

Every group of people can be described as nationalistic, militaristic, and genocidal, but the Jews are not interested in providing us with serious analyses about human behavior or history. Instead, they encourage destructive attitudes. For example, they encourage Americans of European ancestry to feel guilty about the use of Africans as slaves and the killing of Native Americans, and they encourage African-Americans and the Native Americans to feel sorry for themselves because their ancestors were abused by European immigrants. The Jews encourage us to pout and hate over historical events rather than encourage us to learn from the past and work with other people to make the future a better place for everybody.

Some Native Americans and African-Americans have been convinced by the propaganda that they cannot enjoy life today because their ancestors were abused by Caucasians from Europe, but that is an idiotic attitude. The ancestors of Native Americans and Africans were just as arrogant, selfish, and violent as other groups of people, and they fought with their neighbors just like everybody else. Some of the Native Americans would scalp their neighbors, for example, but we don't criticize them for that crude behavior.

Unfortunately, people who resist thinking are likely to pick up the Jewish propaganda that we should feel sorry for Jews, Native Americans, Africans, homosexuals, women, criminals, refugees, and underdogs, and that we should hate anti-Semites, racists, sexists, homophobes, tyrants, and Nazis. The Jews are not encouraging productive behavior. They encourage hatred and pouting, and they encourage the different races and sexes to fight with one another. The Jews are analogous to dirt in a transmission.

Children are terrible witnesses
The Hampstead case is difficult to solve because the only witnesses are children. Their low intelligence and lack of education causes them to do a terrible job of explaining events, and they sometimes make idiotic assumptions. Furthermore, their submissive nature causes them to sometimes say what they assume they should say rather than what they believe. They sometimes do this type of lying because they want to please the person who is interviewing them, and sometimes it is because they are frightened of the person.

If you watched the video of Alyssa being interviewed by the police officer (this video), you may have noticed that by the end of the interview she seems to be reversing her opinions and claiming that she had been lying about the sexual abuse and murder rituals. Scotland Yard would undoubtedly claim that Alyssa was telling the truth at the end of the video, but the more likely explanation is that because she is a girl, she is more submissive and eager to please adults than her brother Gabriel, and the policeman who was interviewing her was trying to manipulate her, not uncover the truth.

If I had been a victim of abuse as a child, it would have been easy for an adult to make me appear to be insane. All he would have to do is ask me whether my family has a black and white television or a color television. I would've answered that we have a black and white television, but the cartoons are in color. (I mentioned this bizarre situation here in this document.) The adult would then be able to announce to the world that I cannot separate reality from fantasy and, therefore, my accusations about being abused are coming from my crazy hallucinations.

Was I crazy when I was a child? Am I still crazy? I don't think so. I think human and animal brains have no idea of what reality is, and no concern for reality. Our brains interpret the world in whatever manner we please. Our emotions don't care about reality. Actually, our emotions don't like a lot of aspects of real life, and the result is our emotions want us to ignore those aspects and believe whatever we find more pleasing.

When I was a child, there was a Christmas Eve when I heard Santa's reindeers on the roof. Did I dream about it? Or did I hear animals on the roof or in the attic?

When I first moved into the house that I am in now, I would occasionally hear footsteps and pounding on the roof, and I visualized some of the neighborhood kids had climbed up there, or a burglar was trying to get into the house through the roof. I ran outside a few times to see who was on the roof, but I never found anybody. Eventually I realized that crows were regularly landing on my roof and pounding their food, and sometimes the neighborhood cats would climb on my roof. Occasionally a raccoon can be found on a roof. So now when I hear those noises, instead of imagining Santa's reindeers, children, or burglars, I visualize crows, cats, and raccoons.

As we grow up, we learn to be more realistic, but each of us has a different desire and ability to see reality and keep our imagination under control. For example, when a person talks to God, is he imagining that God is listening to him? Or is he really speaking to his God? When his God talks to him, is he really hearing what his God is saying to him? Or is the conversation coming from his imagination?

Who is more in touch with reality:
a) A child who believes that a black and white television can display cartoons in color.
b) An adult who believes that crime would cease if everybody had a gun with them at all times.
c) An adult who believes that his child will be psychologically damaged if schools provide sex education.

How about:
a) A child who believes he heard Santa's reindeers walking on the roof.
b) An adult who believes that a god will forgive him every time he commits a crime.
c) A physicist who believes in time travel and wormholes.

a) A child who complains that his parents don't give him enough freedom or privacy.
b) An adult man who complains that his employer or government doesn't provide him with enough freedom or privacy.

The human mind has no idea of what reality is, and no interest in reality. Our emotions want to interpret the world in whatever manner brings us the most pleasure. We want to ignore whatever irritates us and focus on whatever makes us feel good. We want to "have fun", not "suffer".

Because the human brain is just a large monkey brain, we have to be careful believing what a person tells us. A person may tell us the "truth", but that doesn't mean that what he says is accurate or realistic. For example, I truly believed that our black and white television was displaying cartoons in color, and I would have passed a lie detector test.

Incidentally, it is probably a good thing that my father did not become concerned when I told him that the cartoons were in color. If he had considered it to be a symptom of a mental disorder, he might have taken me to a psychologist, and who knows what the psychologist would have suggested. Perhaps drugs, or perhaps the type of "helpful" rehabilitation technique in the movie 1984.

Police detectives noticed long ago that witnesses to a crime rarely agree on what they saw. This is partly because each witness is in a different physical location, and that causes them to see the crime from different perspectives and lighting conditions, but it is also because each person's mind interprets the events in a slightly different manner.

There is no answer book to life, so nobody can be certain of what is real and what is a fantasy. We must learn to put pressure on ourselves to look for evidence for everything that our mind believes, and after we find evidence, we should check it again, and we should have somebody else check it, also.

Unfortunately, even if other people verify what we believe, that doesn't guarantee that it is accurate. A good example are the millions of people throughout history who have analyzed the bible, horoscopes, witches, palm reading, and other issues, and have agreed with one another that those concepts are sensible.