Hufschmid's main page
Previous commentaries

The death of George Floyd

Some lessons to learn from this incident

by Eric Hufschmid
14 June 2020

Murder? Accident? False Flag Operation?
Journalists are chefs for our mind
Nine examples to justify evicting a journalist
Democracies are hopeless
The hypocrisy of the liberals is horrifying
Most people are easily manipulated and deceived
The level of abuse is shocking
What do you want your future to be?

Murder? Accident? False Flag Operation?

A variety of theories have been posted on the Internet about what happened to George Floyd. I agree that it seems to be a false flag operation, in which case some of the "facts" are likely to be lies, but this document is not an investigation of what happened.

Rather, I want to point out some of the lessons that we can learn from it so that when some group of people finds the courage to start experimenting with new cities and new culture, they will have some ideas on how to provide themselves with higher quality journalism and government.

The death of George Floyd exposes some serious problems

We do not need to know the truth about Floyd in order to learn important lessons from his death. Actually, the confusion about what happened to Floyd is one of the issues I want to bring to your attention. Three lessons that we can learn are:

   1) There are no consequences for dishonest journalism

Many journalists exploited Floyd's death in order to incite hatred of the police and instigate racial fights. The journalists routinely get away with lies, deception, manipulation, and censorship. A person can even provide proof that another journalist has lied, as Laura Ingram did here, but no nation stops the dishonest journalists. This is a serious flaw with every nation's culture!

   2) Secrecy is helping the criminals

Somebody in the Minneapolis Police Department is hiding the most critical video of Floyd's death, and people have been observed instigating violence at the protests, but our nation provides everybody with so much secrecy that it is difficult to identify who those people are, and who they work for.

President Trump posted a link to a video (the image below) that shows Nathan Caraway giving money to a black man, which many of us interpreted as evidence that Caraway is an "instigator", but journalists insist that Caraway was actually being helpful and loving. What is the truth about Caraway? Secrecy makes it impossible for us to know.

   3) A democracy will never have good leadership

The police confrontations and resulting protests for George Floyd are similar to those for Rodney King, Michael Brown, and other black men. Our nation suffers from the same problems over and over because we do not learn from our mistakes. Likewise, we suffer year after year from the same problems of flooding in our cities, traffic congestion, rising taxes, telemarketers who ignore the do-not-call list, and endless increases in college tuition.

A democracy puts the majority of people in control of their nation by creating a government of submissive representatives, but the public cannot manage a modern nation. We should acknowledge the evidence that democracies are hopeless.

A democracy is essentially a group of children without adult supervision. A democracy is easily dominated, exploited, and abused by intelligent crime networks. We should experiment with a different government system.

Journalists are chefs for our mind

Everybody demands that the chef at a restaurant wash his hands, ensure that the kitchen is clean, and ensure that the food is safe and healthy. However, not many of us care what the journalists provide for our mind. We care about what we put into our stomach, but not what we put into our brain.

The government has an agency that will regularly inspect restaurants and food businesses to ensure that those businesses are meeting certain standards, but no government cares what journalists do, so there is no agency to inspect the news reports, history books, or other documents that journalists create to ensure that they are meeting certain standards.

Imagine a chef deliberately contaminating his meals

Imagine if Laura Ingram were to produce a television report that provided proof that a particular chef had deliberately infected his meals with salmonella in order to make people sick. Do you think that the public, police, professors, or business executives would have ignored her report? I think that the public would be outraged, and that the chef would be arrested.

What is the difference between:
a) A chef who contaminates his meals in order to make us sick.
b) A journalist who lies to us in order to manipulate our opinions.

The difference between those people is that the journalist is more destructive to society because he can manipulate the entire world and the future generations, whereas a chef can hurt only the few people who eat his meals.

Most adults understand the danger of contaminated food. Therefore, when we are told that some brand of spinach has been contaminated with E. coli, or that some restaurant has rats living in the kitchen, most adults avoid eating that spinach and going to that restaurant.

Unfortunately, the majority of people do not have the intelligence necessary to understand how dangerous the dishonest journalists are. Even when the public suspects that the journalists are lying to them, most people will continue purchasing their newspapers and magazines, and continue watching them on television.

A democracy depends upon the public to provide their submissive government representatives with wise policies, but most people are behaving just like Uncle Sam in the cartoon below.

Most people cannot cope with the problems of the modern world, or the intelligent crime networks. The public needs leadership, and they need protection from the intelligent criminals.

Journalists have a critical role in our lives

Journalists have a significant effect on our opinions, especially the opinions of children. Journalists provide us with information — or lies — about the Apollo moon landing, the world wars, President Trump, George Floyd, and the 9/11 attack. They have a critical role in society, and we should demand that they meet high standards.

We should have higher standards for journalists than we do for chefs. It is more important for us to inspect and pass judgment on the work of journalists than it is to inspect the meals that chefs are creating.

A society should watch out for journalists who provide us with inaccurate or incomplete information. We should pass judgment on whether those journalists are making a mistake, or whether they are trying to deceive us.

If we come to the conclusion that a journalist is trying to deceive us, then we should regard him as a criminal. We should not ignore his abuse.

Dishonest journalists should be arrested

During the past few months, I've noticed that a few of the people that I personally know, and some of the people posting messages on the Internet, have been complaining that journalists are giving us deceptive news reports. However, complaining about the journalists does not stop their abuse.

When Trump was a candidate for president, he promised to make it easier for us to file lawsuits against journalists, and he repeated that promise a couple years later. He has not kept his promise, but we should not care because lawsuits have never succeeded in reducing crime. Rather, lawsuits provide opportunities for businesses, lawyers, and other people to profit from crime and/or to torment their critics and competitors.

We must experiment with different policies. I suggest that we consider journalists who lie and deceive to be committing a crime that is so serious that they should be exiled or executed.

We must design crime policies for society, not for our emotions

In other documents I pointed out that every society is dealing with crime according to their emotional reactions, rather than according to their intellect. This is creating policies for crime that are irrational and useless.

For example, when a burglar steals something from our home, certain emotions are triggered that cause us to become angry at the burglar and want to hurt him, which is exactly the same reaction we see with monkeys. When a burglar has a gun, we become even more emotionally upset, so we want to hurt him even more severely.

When we create laws, we create them to appease our emotions. Specifically, the more angry we become at a criminal, the more harshly we want to punish him. We describe this as "punishments that fit the crime". However, punishments don't do anything to prevent crime. We could describe punishments as being "emotional candy" rather than as "intellectual policies".

If a crime doesn't trigger much anger, then we are likely to regard it as an insignificant crime, even if it is actually extremely destructive. For example, not many people became angry when they learned that Michael Milken was accused of insider trading, tax evasion, and stock parking. Those type of crimes are so complex that a person will not become angry by them unless he:
a) Spends some time thinking about the crime.
b) Has the intelligence and education necessary to realize that those crimes are more destructive to society and the economy than the burglarizing of a home, and that those crimes can hurt thousands or millions of people, whereas a burglar only hurts the few people he steals from.

Unfortunately, we don't like to think, and most people don't seem to have the intelligence or education to understand the destructiveness of the complex crimes anyway. As a result, most people do not have much of a reaction to the complex crimes. Most people become much more angry at burglars and incompetent waitresses than they do at criminals like Milken.

As a result of designing punishments according to our emotional feelings, a burglar might be punished for many years in jail, and he may have a very difficult time getting a job when he gets out of jail. Likewise, an incompetent waitress may be punished by her customers who deny her a tip or suggest that she be fired.

By comparison, people who commit more complex crimes may pay a fine instead of going to jail, and if they go to jail, it may not interfere with their ability to get another high-paying job.

We are never going to reduce crime as long as we continue to design laws according to our emotional feelings. Our laws are essentially pandering to the group of monkeys that we evolved from.

We must exert some self-control over our emotional cravings to hurt criminals. In order to truly reduce crime, we must use our intellect to conduct experiments with our legal system. We must design the legal system according to what is effective, not according to what pleases our animal emotions. 

Nine examples to justify evicting a journalist

The following nine sections describe some of the crimes that journalists are committing. These crimes are more serious than those of a burglar or a chef who contaminates his food because they affect the entire world and the future generations.

The purpose of these following nine sections is to show that the journalists are trying to manipulate our opinions about George Floyd, and that they should be considered as committing a crime that is so serious that they should be removed from society.


1) Ignoring the most important video
2) Ignoring the passengers of the car
3) Deceiving us about Floyd's breathing problems
4) Lying about Floyd's behavior before the police arrived
5) Ignoring Floyd's health problems
6) Lying about George Floyd's history
7) Ignoring similar incidents with white people
8) Ignoring strange aspects of the protests
9) Not allowing policemen to be innocent until proven guilty

1) Ignoring the most important video

The arrest and death of George Floyd was recorded by at least one security camera, several police cameras, and at least one cell phone. However, the Minnesota Police Department is not allowing us to see all of the video. They are censoring the most important sections of the video.

Furthermore, the journalists are not demanding that the police release that critical video. Rather, they are ignoring it, which could be because they are trying to exploit the situation for their benefit, or perhaps they are working with the police to deceive us. Regardless of their motives, the journalists are giving us an extremely distorted view of the event by ignoring that video. For example, they provide us with the video that shows a policeman pulling Floyd out of his car because he does not want to get out voluntarily. He is then handcuffed and taken to the side of a building on the sidewalk.

That video shows the two passengers in his car peacefully obeyed the policeman's order to get out of the car. Both of them walked over to the sidewalk, but neither was handcuffed or hurt because neither caused any trouble for the police.

That security video then shows two policemen calmly and peacefully walking with Floyd (the photo to the right) to take him to a police car on the other street. However, when they get to that police car, Floyd drops to the sidewalk because he does not want to get into the car. The video is terminated at that point.

The next video segment is of Floyd on the other side of that police car, and he is once again resisting the attempt by the policemen to put him into the car. That video is then abruptly terminated while Floyd is standing upright.

The next video segment that we see is of Floyd lying in the street on his stomach, with a policeman on his neck.

The two critical video segments that the Minnesota Police Department is hiding from us are:
1) How and why the policemen moved Floyd from one side of the car to the other.
2) Even more important, how and why Floyd went from standing upright at the police car to lying down in the street with a policeman kneeling on his neck.

Why is the police department hiding the two, most important, video segments? And why do none of the journalists care about the missing video? (If you have not seen those deceptive news reports, here is one example.)

A portion of the missing video was posted here, but it also terminates before we can see how Floyd ended up on the other side of the police car. That segment shows Floyd resisting the police.

There are lots of ways of explaining the dishonest behavior of the police and journalists, but I suspect that the police officials are conspiring with the journalists to instigate race riots and create fear and hatred of the police.

It may seem bizarre for me to accuse the police of being involved with a false flag operation that is intended to create hatred of the police, but if you have looked at the evidence that I have provided that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, then you should realize that the Jews often participate in anti-Semitic attacks. Why would a Jew commit an anti-Semitic attack? There are lots of reasons, such as to bring pity to the Jews, to create anger towards anti-Semites, to justify arresting "anti-Semites" and "Holocaust Deniers", and to deflect criticism away from Jews and onto other people.

If my suspicions are correct, then the police officials and journalists should be considered guilty of withholding crucial information for the purpose of deceiving and manipulating the public, and for the purpose of instigating hatred of the police and race riots.

Many journalists frequently condemn people for "hate speech" and "racism", but their reports about Floyd's death should be described as "racist" and as "hate speech" because they are attempts to incite hatred of white people and the police.

Officer Chauvin is arrested without the crucial information

The journalists caused so many people to become so angry at officer Chauvin that this document was filed to arrest Chauvin for murder. None of the people who wanted Chauvin arrested cared that the autopsy had not been completed, and that crucial video segments were hidden from us.

Since that document was created before the missing information was available, it could not provide details about the "murder". Instead, it makes the following vague remarks:

The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad 320 from the driver’s side. Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still. Mr. Floyd is over six feet tall and weighs more than 200 pounds.

While standing outside the car, Mr. Floyd began saying and repeating that he could not breathe. The defendant went to the passenger side and tried to get Mr. Floyd into the car from that side and Lane and Kueng assisted.

The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. Kueng held Mr. Floyd’s back and Lane held his legs. The defendant placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd’s head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, “I can’t breathe” multiple times....

That description admits that Floyd was resisting the attempt by the police to put him into the police car, but it does not explain how he ended up on his stomach in the street with a policeman kneeling on his neck. Instead, it describes that crucial moment as "Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down". How exactly did he "went to the ground"? Did he deliberately drop to the ground in another of his attempts to prevent the policemen from putting him into the car?

Even more bizarre, after Floyd dropped to the ground, why did officer Kueng decide to hold his back, and officer Lane decide to hold his legs, and officer Chauvin decide to kneel on his neck? If Floyd was cooperating peacefully with the police, why were three policemen trying to hold him down on the street?

It is also important to note that when Floyd deliberately dropped to the ground on the other side of the police car, the officers picked him back up. Why did they decide to hold him down and kneel on him rather than pick him up again, like they did before?

That document, and the journalists, want us to believe that the police decided that instead of picking Floyd up and trying again to put him into the police car, they would hold him down on the street and kneel on his neck. While that is certainly possible, it is more likely that Floyd, who was larger and stronger than all of the police officers, was putting up so much resistance that the police were having trouble controlling him and getting him into the car.

The only aspect of that incident that I find peculiar is that officer Chauvin remained kneeling on his neck for quite a while, and for no apparent reason, which makes me wonder if he was ensuring that people had time to record video of Floyd complaining.

2) Ignoring the passengers of the car

There are two significant similarities between the death of George Floyd and the beating of Rodney King:

1) The driver of the car was larger and stronger than a typical man, and instead of cooperating with the police, he resisted them. Because of his large size, the police had to use more force to control him compared to when they fight with "normal" men.

2) The passengers in the car obeyed the police, and were not harmed in any manner.

The two black passengers were allowed to wander around on the sidewalk. The police did not hurt them.
The journalists ignored the fact that the passengers were not harmed, or arrested, even though the passengers were just as black as the driver.

Instead of pointing out that the only people who become victims of "police brutality" are those that fight with the police, regardless of their age, race, sex, or religion, the journalists ignored the passengers in order to fool people into believing that the police attacked King and Floyd simply because the policemen are racist, hateful white people who enjoy beating and killing black people.

The police confront thousands of people for a variety of reasons, but only a small percentage of those confrontations become violent. There is only one way to explain why only a few black people end up being attacked by the police, and that is because they decided to fight with the police. It has nothing to do with racism.

Since there are exceptions to just about everything, there are undoubtedly a few times in history in which a white policeman attacked a black man simply because he was black, but those events would be rare.

A society should watch out for journalists who ignore crucial information. It is impossible and impractical for a journalist to provide all details of an event, so every journalist has to decide which information to ignore. However, we should pass judgment on whether a journalist is ignoring certain details in order to manipulate us.

If we come to the conclusion that a journalist is incompetent, then he should be fired. However, if we determined that a journalist is trying to deceive us, he should be regarded as a dangerous criminal, and we should not tolerate that type of abuse.

3) Deceiving us about Floyd's breathing problems

The journalists claim that Floyd was having breathing problems because an officer was kneeling on his neck, but it is important to note that Floyd complained repeatedly about having trouble breathing while he was standing upright, before he began struggling with the police. This is significant for two reasons:

a) Floyd's repeated complaints could have resulted in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Effect" in which the police assumed he was lying about his breathing problems in an attempt to fool the police into feeling sorry for him and let him go home, or let him go to a hospital, rather than take him to jail.

b) The autopsy showed that Floyd had circulatory and heart problems, and he had been using fentanyl and methamphetamines, so that might have been the cause of his breathing problems, not the police. He may also have been panicking at the thought of going to jail.

What was the true cause of Floyd's breathing problems?

The journalists showed no desire to investigate why Floyd was suffering from breathing problems, or to investigate his health problems, drug use, emotional condition, or mental problems. Instead, the journalists ignored or minimized Floyd's complaints about breathing while he was standing up, and they told us that Floyd was "repeatedly pleading that he cannot breathe as he is held down with a knee on his neck". Their unfair reporting of his breathing problems is more evidence that the journalists were trying to manipulate our opinions.

The police did not ignore Floyd's breathing problems

The journalists imply that the officers ignored Floyd's complaints that he could not breathe, but according to the document that accused Chauvin of murder, the officers were concerned about his health, and assumed that they were treating Floyd safely, as shown by this portion of a conversation between officers Chauvin (the defendant) and Lane:

Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” The defendant said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.”

That document shows that the officers assumed that they were following the proper procedures for that particular restraining technique. Therefore, it is not fair for the journalists to accuse the officers of ignoring his complaints.

4) Lying about Floyd's behavior before the police arrived

The journalists ignored Floyd's odd behavior before the police had arrived. Specifically, the transcript of the 9/11 phone call shows that the man who called the police had described Floyd as:

Caller: "...and he’s sitting on his car cause he is awfully drunk and he’s not in control of himself."

Operator:  On 38th ST.  So, this guy gave a counterfeit bill, has your cigarettes, and he’s under the influence of something?

Caller:  Something like that, yes.  He is not acting right.

Why was Floyd “not in control of himself”?

Why was Floyd described as "not in control of himself"? Was it because of drug use? Did he suffer from some type of mental disorder? What exactly was Floyd doing that made him appear to be "awfully drunk"?

The man who called the police did not give an accurate description of Floyd's behavior, and the journalists did not show any interest in getting more details by talking to that man, or talking to the police. However:
a) It is unfair to the police that the journalists ignored Floyd's strange behavior because it would have affected how the police treated him. Specifically, when the police have to confront somebody who is behaving in a bizarre manner, they are much more likely to be suspicious and fearful of the person compared to a person who is calm, relaxed, and polite.

b) It is unfair to Floyd that the journalists do not get details about the man who called the police because that man may have lied about Floyd's behavior in order to give the police a bad image of him. Floyd has the right to defend himself against the accusations that he was "not in control of himself".

Rather than investigate this issue, the journalist ignored or minimized the accusation that Floyd was "awfully drunk", and they tried to create the impression that Floyd was calm, respectable, and polite. Their dishonest description of Floyd should be used as additional evidence that they were trying to manipulate public opinion in order to instigate race riots and hatred of the police.

5) Ignoring Floyd's health problems

The autopsy was not complete until 3 June 2020, but the initial examination suggested that Floyd has circulatory and heart problems, and that he was using some type of drugs. The family of George Floyd reacted to that report by demanding another autopsy.

The journalists also disregarded the examiner's suggestion that Floyd had health problems; ignored the possibility that George was abusing drugs; and showed no concern that the toxicology analysis was not yet finished. Instead of waiting for the autopsy to be complete, and instead of reporting what the examiner had discovered so far, the journalists promoted the theory that Floyd was in wonderful health, and that his death was due entirely to the policeman who was kneeling on him.

Their disregard of the medical examiner's report, and their lack of concern that the autopsy was incomplete, is more evidence that the journalists had no desire to uncover the truth about Floyd's death, and that their true goal was to exploit his death in order to instigate hatred and race riots.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the document that demanded Chauvin be arrested for murder was written before the autopsy was complete. Why should we allow a policeman, or any citizen, to be arrested for murder when such critical information is missing, and in which the preliminary autopsy information suggests that it could have been an accident due to underlying health problems and drug abuse? Why not wait until we get more information before we conclude that the death was a murder? Why were so many people rushing to have Chauvin arrested?

Why was Floyd behaving so strangely?

The autopsy was completed on 3 June 2020, and it showed that Floyd was suffering from "arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe" and "hypertensive heart disease". It is important to note that the man who called the police to complain about Floyd said that Floyd was drunk, but the autopsy showed there was no ethanol in his blood. Instead there was amphetamines and fentanyl.

This is significant because the person who called the police said that Floyd "was awfully drunk", "not in control of himself", and "not acting right". Therefore, if he was not under the influence of alcohol, what was causing his bizarre behavior? Can the level of amphetamines and/or fentanyl in Floyd's body have that type of effect on a person's behavior? Or was Floyd under the effect of some other drug that the medical examiner did not check for?

There have been accusations that the FBI, Mossad, and other agencies can set a person up to be arrested, or to become a helpless patsy, by giving him a drug that has an effect that is similar to alcohol. Did somebody give George Floyd that type of drug?

Or did the man who called the police lie about Floyd's behavior? If so, he may have also lied when he accused Floyd of using counterfeit money! However, the journalists showed no interest in resolving the discrepancy of how a person can seem "awfully drunk" while not having any ethanol in his blood.

Floyd's death may have been an accident

If Floyd was suffering from circulatory and heart problems, the officers would not have known about it. Instead, they would have assumed that Floyd was as he appeared to be, which was a tall, muscular, and healthy man.

Incidentally, there are disagreements on the size and weight of George Floyd. The autopsy report says he is 193 cm tall and 101 kg in weight (6' 4", 223 pounds), but some news reports, such as this and this, claim he was as tall as 201 cm (6' 7"). The journalists cannot even agree on his height!

The autopsy report suggests that his death was the result of his circulatory system being too weak to handle the officer kneeling on his neck. If the medical examiner is correct, then I would conclude that Floyd's death was an accident, and the policeman is not guilty.

Criminals rarely die from neck restraints

Although a lot of criminals die during fights with the police, they don't usually die from a neck restraint. This article says that from the beginning of 2015 until the death of George Floyd, the Minneapolis police used neck restraints at least 237 times, and 44 of those people lost consciousness as a result, but did not die. That article shows that the Minnesota police are taught to use neck restraints, and have been doing so safely for many years.

If Floyd died because his circulatory and heart problems could not handle the neck restraint, that is not the fault of the police. That would be better described as an unfortunate accident.

Consider two of millions of possible scenarios of how fighting with the police could result in a person's accidental death because of medical problems that could not handle routine police procedures:

1) Two officers helped Chauvin hold Floyd down on the street. What if Chauvin had been alone? In that case, he might have had so much trouble controlling Floyd that he might have used his Taser. What if the Taser triggered heart palpitations, which, with Floyd's circulatory problems, eventually caused Floyd to die? Should Chauvin be guilty of murder in that case? What if Chauvin had used his Taser two or three times instead of just once? Should he be accused of murder as a result of excessive use of a Taser?

2) A few people inherited the brittle bone disorder, and some people have osteoporosis. If a criminal with brittle bones chooses to get into a fight with the police rather than cooperate peacefully, and if the police accidentally shatter a bone in his arm or leg, which ruptures an artery, which causes internal bleeding, and which eventually results in the death of the criminal, should the police be guilty of murder?

The police should have access to a database about us

The possibility that Floyd's death was due to his health problems brings up two important issues:

1) Secrecy hurts honest people

Every society is providing people with so much secrecy that the police do not know who any of us are, and they do not have access to much information about us. For example, they do not know who among us is deaf in one or both ears, who has heart problems, who is suffering from a mental disorder, who has one or two artificial legs, or who has a glass eye.

There have already been confrontations between citizens and the police when the police became angry at a person for ignoring their orders, and it turned out that the person was deaf or mentally retarded. If the police had access to a database with details about all of us, it would allow the police to make much better decisions on how to treat us.

2) Most of us don't know much about our health problems

Floyd may not have known that he had circulatory or heart problems. The reason is because most of us, especially people who appear to be in good health, have never been put through detailed medical analysis of our circulatory system, liver, kidney, pancreas, or other organs. Most of us have had only a few simplistic medical examinations, such as a check of our blood pressure and TSH levels. Therefore, even if the police had access to our medical data, the police would not have known that Floyd had circulatory problems.

Furthermore, most people want to believe that they are perfect creations of a supreme being, but in reality we are just haphazard jumbles of genetic traits. Each of us has lots of flaws and defects, but what flaws do each of us have? We don't make any attempt to identify them.

I mentioned in other documents that I thought I was dying unusually early at about age 57, and before giving up I decided to try some other doctors, and I discovered that I have a problem with my thyroid levels. Until then, my life was constant suffering from low energy levels, never feeling quite right, and frequently being in a semi-sleep state. The reason I was never diagnosed properly is because the doctors have a tendency to measure our TSH levels rather than our thyroid levels.

How many people are there besides me who would have benefited from more thorough analyses of our hormones, liver, heart, immune system, or digestive system? How many people are suffering unnecessarily from medical problems that we have the technology to improve?

We put a tremendous amount of labor and resources into maintaining our automobiles, providing mansions for wealthy people, and providing health care for pets, but we do almost nothing to understand or maintain our own health. Our healthcare system is so expensive and annoying that we have a tendency to avoid it until necessary.

All of us would benefit if we gave a higher priority to understanding and maintaining human health.

Autopsy reports are opinions, not facts

Rather than wait for the autopsy to be completed, the family of George Floyd, and many other people, such as Megan McCain, complained that they do not trust the preliminary autopsy, and they demanded someone else be able to conduct an autopsy.

An autopsy report is a "medical report" of a dead person. It is not "the truth", or "the facts". Rather, it is one person's opinion about the cause of death. Therefore, we should be willing to allow more than one medical examiner to investigate a suspicious death.

In my document which supports President Trump's suggestion that we reinvestigate the death of Lori Klausutis, I pointed out that the autopsy came from a medical examiner who we ought to be suspicious of. I recommend a second or third autopsy of Klausutis.

I support additional autopsies of George Floyd, also. However, it is important to note that if somebody demands an additional autopsy for Floyd, but refuses to support additional autopsies of Lori Klausutis, or other people, then we should consider that those people are not truly interested in understanding the death of Floyd. Rather, they are merely dismissing the autopsies they don't like. In other words, they are not looking for the truth; they are looking for the results they want.

I recommend an additional, independent autopsy of Lori Klausutis, Jim Morrison, Whitney Houston, and Michael Jackson. Will Megan McCain support my recommendation for those autopsies? Will McCain also support my suggestion that we provide the public with a DNA analysis of Paul McCartney and Michelle Obama?

A few days after the preliminary autopsy was released, Michael Baden released his autopsy opinion that the police were entirely responsible for the death of George Floyd, and that Floyd's death had nothing to do with his health problems or drug use.

However, Baden is even more suspicious than the medical examiner for Lori Klausutis. For example, Baden was chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' Forensic Pathology Panel that lied about the autopsy of President Kennedy. Since Baden lied about the JFK autopsy, we would be foolish to believe anything he says about George Floyd. (If you believe the official story of the JFK assassination, take a look at my remarks about it in chapters 11 and 12 of my book, here.)

Baden has been involved with a lot of autopsies, but there are disagreements over which autopsies he actually performed and which he only commented about. The secrecy that we provide people in influential positions makes it impossible for us to know what exactly he did.

Dr. Mike Hansen created this video to justify the arrest of officer Chauvin by saying that even if Floyd had circulatory problems, Chauvin should be considered guilty of his death. I agree with Dr. Hansen that none of the policemen showed much concern about Floyd's breathing problems, but I would not have shown any concern, either, because the police routinely use neck restraints without any problem, so Floyd, who was larger and stronger than most criminals, should have had an even easier time handling the neck restraint.

Earlier I mentioned the scenario of a criminal with brittle bone disease. If Floyd had brittle bones, and if he died as I mentioned in that scenario, would Dr. Hansen accuse the police of murder?

Is Dr. Hansen really interested in helping us understand why Floyd died? Or is he a member of the group that is trying to instigate race riots and hatred of the police?

6) Lying about George Floyd's history

Some journalists published reports about the history of officer Derek Chauvin, such as this report that tells us he had "received at least 17 complaints". The journalists do not hesitate to mentioned the incidents in a policeman's past that can give him a bad image, but they ignore or minimize the incidents in Floyd's past that give him a bad image. Most of the news reports about Floyd make him appear to be an ordinary person.

Here is one of the articles that admits that Floyd has been causing trouble for many years, and had been in and out of jail. Four remarks from that article:

• Floyd had at least five stints in jail
• ... five years in prison in 2009 for aggravated assault stemming from a robbery in 2007 where he entered a woman’s home, pressed a gun into her stomach and searched the home for drugs and money...
• Prior to that, Floyd was sentenced to 10 months in state jail for possession of cocaine.
• He did another stint for theft with a firearm in August 1998. He served 10 months...

A few people are claiming that the woman that Floyd robbed in 2007 was pregnant, which could mean that Floyd had threatened to kill her and her baby. Here is one of those accusations. Other people are saying she was not pregnant. Who do we believe? Journalists show no interest in providing details of that crime. If officer Chauvin had been accused of pressing his gun into a pregnant woman's belly, would the journalists have ignored it?

An issue you might find interesting to discuss with your friends is how people would have reacted if officer Chauvin had been patrolling that woman's neighborhood on the night that Floyd decided to break into her home. Imagine if Chauvin had rushed over to her house, ran inside, knocked the gun out of Floyd's hand, forced him to the ground, and kneeled on his neck until other police arrived. If Floyd ended up dead, would Chauvin have been considered guilty of murder? Or would he have been considered an heroic policeman who protected a woman from a dangerous, armed, and habitual criminal?

Was Floyd a reformed criminal?

It is important to note that although some journalists admit to Floyd's criminal history, thereby creating the impression that they are giving honest news reports, the journalists try to convince us to give pity to Floyd rather than regard him as a criminal. For example, the journalist for the Daily Mail article claims that Floyd "moved to Minneapolis determined to turn his life around after being released from prison in Texas".

I would say that a man who uses counterfeit money, and uses fentanyl and methamphetamines, and who fights with the police, is "behaving the same as he behaved during his past", not behaving like a man who is "determined to turn his life around".

In another sentence from that news article, is the remark that Floyd's "pursuit of a better life ended tragically". I would respond that it is more accurate to say that "Floyd's habitual bad behavior ended as it often does for criminals; namely, in a fight with the police that results in death or jail."

Of course, if the accusations are true that Floyd discovered that there was a pedophile network operating at the nightclub that he was working at, and that he wanted to expose it, then the pedophiles in the police department may have decided to use him in a false flag operation before he had the chance to expose their pedophile operation. However, until we have some evidence for that theory, let's assume that Floyd really was using counterfeit money, abusing drugs, and fighting with the police.

The journalists wants us to feel sorry for Floyd, and to consider Floyd to be a reformed criminal who has been cured of his bad behavior. However, we must judge a person by his actual behavior, not according to what some journalist tells us to believe.

Floyd's behavior shows us that he was not cured of his bad behavior. Floyd is more evidence that jail cannot cure people of their bad behavior. Jail cannot cure people of their alcohol problems, violent tendencies, obesity, diabetes, cancer, or anything else. Jail is worthless.

There have been a few people who stopped committing crimes after going to jail, but that doesn't prove that jail is a valuable or sensible method of correcting bad behavior. If we were to make obesity illegal, and if we put obese people in jail for a year, we would discover that some of those obese people would force themselves to lose weight in order to avoid going to jail a second time. However, that doesn't prove that jail is an effective method of dealing with obesity.

Why not have a death penalty for obesity?

Imagine if a society were to set a death penalty for obesity. In such a case, we would discover that an even larger number of obese people force themselves to lose weight compared to when the obese people are put in jail for a year. Does that prove that the death penalty is an effective method of curing obesity? No!

Killing obese people would eliminate all obese people because they would either lose weight or be killed, but it would not cure the people who have a problem controlling their weight.

The same concept applies to insects and animals. For example, if you have a "death penalty" for the rats that enter your home, you will kill all of the rats that enter your home, but you will not stop the rats from coming into your home. Your death penalty will not change the behavior of rats. Every rat will continue to behave like a rat, and they will continue to try to get into your home.

Was Floyd an actor in a pornography movie?

If officer Chauvin had been an actor in a pornography movie, I suspect that the journalists would have used that information as a way of giving him a bad image. For example, they might have described him as:
• Officer Chauvin, a wannabe pornography star...
• Officer Chauvin, the sexually disturbed police officer...

Some people posted accusations on the Internet that George Floyd was involved with a pornography movie, but the journalists don't show any interest in investigating that accusation.

Should we care if Floyd was in a pornography movie?

Some people have posted remarks on the Internet that Floyd's role in a pornography movie has no significance to his death, but that is not necessarily true. There are several reasons as to how that activity could have played a role in his death. For two examples:

1) If Floyd was trying to keep that information a secret from certain family members, friends, neighbors, or acquaintances, he may have been concerned that his arrest would expose his role in the pornography movie, and that fear could have contributed to his panicking, fighting with the police, and having trouble breathing.

2) Some law enforcement officials claim that organized crime dominates the pornography business. Was the pornography company that George Floyd worked for involved with organized crime? If so, was Floyd aware of it? Was Floyd given a role in the movie as a favor helping the crime network in some manner? Or did he get involved with the movie because he was desperate for money?

When we discover that somebody is involved with an activity that is dominated by organized crime, we should investigate to determine whether he is aware of the crime network, and involved in some manner.

It is also possible that a person gets involved with an activity that he assumes is honest, and then discovers that it is dominated by a crime network. The crime network might then respond by arranging for him to be killed.

In other words, we would do George Floyd a favor by investigating the pornography company because he may have discovered that they were involved with pedophilia, money laundering, or other crimes, and that they were getting protection from the Minneapolis police and FBI. The police and FBI may have reacted by arranging for him to be killed, and at the same time, use his death to instigate race riots.

To rephrase this, investigating that pornography business might show us that Floyd was set up to be murdered by corrupt law enforcement officials. If that possibility is correct, then the people who insist that the pornography company has no relevance to Floyd's death may be members of that crime network.

When trying to solve crimes, it is irresponsible and stupid to ignore potential connections to organized crime networks. If a person has nothing to hide, an investigation will simply prove his innocence. Only criminals are afraid of investigations.

7) Ignoring similar incidents with white people

People around the world occasionally fight with the police, and many of them end up hurt or dead as a result. Although the journalists provide us with reports of those incidents, they give much more publicity to the confrontations in which the policeman is white, and the criminal is a minority.

For example, Tony Timpa died in 2016 after a policeman had been kneeling on his neck. In that case, Tony had not committed any crime. Rather, he called the police because he was having trouble coping with life. He told the police that he had schizophrenia and depression, and that he had stopped taking his medicine. He called the police to help him. However, because of his mental problems, he ended up fighting with the police, and he ended up dead.

I would describe his death as being "more tragic" than Floyd's death because Timpa had not committed a crime. Rather, he had called the police for help, but instead of getting help, he ended up dead. The police also made jokes about his mental problems. However, the journalists did not spend day after day publicizing his death to the entire world, and accusing the policemen of murder. Why did the journalists ignore his death? Apparently because he was Caucasian.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said that George Floyd would be alive if he had been white. I would respond that if Tony Timpa had been black, the journalists would have given worldwide publicity to the "senseless and tragic murder" by "racist" white policemen. We would have heard sad stories for many weeks about a "mentally challenged" man who asked the police for help, but was murdered by them instead, and as the police made cruel jokes about his mental problems.

It is idiotic to let mentally ill people live with us

Incidentally, I would say that Tony Timpa's death is another example of why it is idiotic to allow mentally ill people to freely wander around our cities. The people who cannot cope with life, such as Alzheimer's patients, young children, retards, and people with certain types of mental problems, should be on restrictions.

Businesses and militaries remove people who cannot fit in their team. They do not provide a sanctuary for the wretched refuse or mentally ill. They do not allow mentally ill people to wander around their buildings, annoy the people, and cause trouble for the security personnel. A city should follow the same policy that has been successful for other organizations.

Most parents realize that children need restrictions, but every society is ignoring the fact that a lot of adults are so mentally incompetent that they should also be under restrictions. This results in a lot of unnecessary suffering of both the mentally defective people, and the victims of their irrational behavior.

Hundreds of criminals die in fights with the police every year

That news article about Timpa's death claims that more than 100 people die every year in Texas from encounters with the police. That is one death almost every three days, and that is only for the state of Texas. However, the journalists do not give much publicity to most of those deaths.

In 2016, Philando Castile was killed by a policeman even though he was peacefully obeying the policeman and behaving properly. Castile was calmly sitting in his automobile with his female partner and their daughter, and he mentioned to the policeman that he was carrying a gun. The policeman reacted by taking his own gun out of its holster and pointing it at Castile, while yelling at him not to reach for his gun. Castile and his partner repeatedly pointed out to the policeman that he was not touching his gun, and the policeman could clearly see that Castile was calmly sitting in the car, but the policeman decided to shoot Philippe seven times.

Why did the policeman shoot Castile, and why seven times? It is possible that the policeman was so easily frightened that he panicked at the thought of a black man with a gun, or perhaps the policeman was inherently more violent than a typical person.

Although we may not be told the truth about the killing of Castile, his death does not seem justified to me. My impression is that the policeman was emotionally unfit to be a policeman. By comparison, the death of Floyd appears to be an accident, and I would say the killing of most criminals, regardless of their race, is justified.

However, the journalists did not give the death of Castile nearly as much publicity as they did with the death of Floyd and other black people, and I suspect it is because the policeman, Jeronimo Yanez, is Hispanic, not white.

Wikipedia gave Derek Chauvin his own page, but they did not create a page for Jeronimo Yanez. Is this just a coincidence? I don't think so. I think the Wikipedia editors are ignoring Yanez because he is Hispanic.

An analysis of which police actions the journalists are giving the most publicity to suggest to me that the network of pedophiles and Jews that is responsible for the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and other crimes, is trying to create hatred of the white Americans. They want the Black Americans and Hispanics to help them fight the white Americans. They are using the Blacks and Hispanics as "attack dogs". Therefore, when black or Hispanic policemen behave in inappropriate manners, the journalists minimize the situation.

An analysis of the crimes the journalists, including those who work with Wikipedia, give the most publicity to will provide us with a lot of evidence that the journalists are deliberately giving excessive amounts of publicity to the fights between white policemen and minority criminals, and their reports are more deceptive about those fights. This is more evidence that the journalists are trying to instigate racial fights and hatred of the police, which is more justification for arresting those journalists.

8) Ignoring suspicious aspects of the protests

Hundreds of citizens have posted messages and videos on the Internet in which they make such accusations as:
• Somebody is paying some of the people to be protesters (such as this and this).

• Somebody is placing piles of bricks at the locations of the protests for people to throw at windows and the police.

• Some people are instigating riots by breaking windows (such as "the umbrella man"), throwing objects at the police, breaking car windows, and starting fires.

• There are more whites than blacks at some protests, and some of the white people are instigating violence even when black people ask them not to do so. In that particular video of one of the Floyd protests, notice the attitude of the two white women who are seen between 10 to 30 seconds. Who are they?

Several days later, after Rayshard Brooks was killed, a white woman was recorded as she set fire to the Wendy's restaurant where Brooks was killed. Most people assumed the fire was set by black people. As of 14 June 2020, the police and journalists are ignoring her, also.

Years ago I mentioned that most of the people who were arrested at the Ferguson and other protests were white. A large percentage of the people at some of the protests for George Floyd are also white. Furthermore, a lot of the people who are causing trouble, such as throwing rocks and breaking windows, are white.

Who are those white people? Why are so many of the white people at the protests getting involved with violence, or fighting with the police?

The journalists do not show any interest in investigating any of these odd aspects of the protests. Instead, they mention these issues in the same type of manner that they discuss the weather. For example, they mention that there appear to be some "instigators" or "agitators" among the protesters, but they don't show any interest in investigating who the instigators might be working for, or what their goal is, or who might be paying them.

The journalists mention the instigators in the same manner that they describe hurricanes and other events that we have no control over. In other words, they avoid stimulating people's curiosity by making it appear as if the instigators are just a fact of life that we must accept.

One of the reasons humans are so easily manipulated is because we don't like to think or do research. Children must be pressured by teachers and parents to learn. Once we get out of school, we have a tendency to avoid learning and thinking, except for the issues that we enjoy learning about, such as Hollywood gossip and sports scores.

When journalists talk about the "instigators", or the "deep state", they do so in a manner that does not stimulate our curiosity. I have heard some ordinary citizens make remarks about "the instigators" and "the deep state", as if they know what they are talking about, but they are behaving like children who are mimicking something they do not understand.

By not stimulating anybody's curiosity, the public never asks such questions as: who is funding the instigators? Who is organizing the instigators? What is the deep state? Who is involved with it? Why don't the police arrest any of them? Why is President Trump allowing them to ruin our nation? Why doesn't Trump demand that the military or police arrest the deep state? Why doesn't he expose who they are?

The Jews who protest are heroes!

Some journalists have pointed out that Jews are joining the protests about Floyd's death, but instead of asking why those Jews are so upset about Floyd's death, they make those Jews appear to be heroes. For example, in this article, Dr. Vivian Fisher, a Jewish physician, justified her participation in the protests with:

"It’s very clear to me that our religion is based on the fact that we don’t just say a rosary, we do what's right."

From her point of view, the Christian religion is inferior because Christians spew a lot of words, but do not do what is right.

How would journalists react if Christians were to make similar arrogant and insulting remarks, such as:

"Our religion is based on the fact that we don't just wave a chicken around our head and sacrifice it; we do what's right!"

Here is another article that makes the Jews who join the protests appear to be heroes. Elie Lauter, Executive Director of KIVUNIM, participated in the protest because:
"...I have certain privileges that people of color don’t have..."
"I feel really responsible as a white person to be out on the streets and to be putting my body on the line."

Since I, and millions of other white people, do not have any desire to join the protests or "put our body on the line" for George Floyd, we must not have the same sense of responsibility that she has.

In regards to the violence and looting that was taking place at some of the protests, she said:
"I don’t believe it’s my place to judge how an oppressed people is protesting,"

Are we allowed to use that reasoning if groups of people start protesting the Jews, and if the protests become violent? Can we respond with a remark similar to:

"I don't believe it's my place to judge how an oppressed people are protesting the censorship, murders, kidnappings, pedophilia, wars, false flag operations, lies, and abuse that the Jews have tormented them with for centuries.

Incidentally, notice that the photo in that article (a portion of which is at the right) shows Dr. Fisher is holding a generic protest sign that required her to write "George Floyd" on it.

Obviously, the Jews have printed some generic protest signs so that they can quickly join any protest simply by writing something in that blank spot.

This should be used as evidence that the Jews don't care what the protest is about; they merely want to encourage protests.

9) Not allowing policemen to be innocent until proven guilty

Many Americans boast that our legal system considers a person innocent until proven guilty but, when a white policeman harms or kills a criminal who is black or Hispanic, the journalists promote the theory that the policeman is guilty, and they don't give the policeman any opportunity to prove his innocence.

Both liberal and conservative journalists are lying to us

The liberals complain that the conservative journalists are liars, and the conservatives complain that the liberal journalists are liars, but both liberal and conservative journalists and government officials showed no desire to treat the policemen as innocent until proven guilty.

For example, on 1 Jun 2020 Sean Hannity, a conservative, interviewed Michael Baden in a favorable manner rather than point out that Baden is missing crucial information and, therefore, his conclusion is premature, unfair, irresponsible, and unacceptable. Hannity also avoided the fact that Baden lied about the death of President Kennedy.

Furthermore, both conservative and liberal journalists are lying to us about hundreds of other events, such as the world wars, pedophiles in the government and Hollywood, the Apollo moon landing, and the 9/11 attack.

Democracies are hopeless

The public cannot manage a modern society

No society yet cares whether journalists are lying to us. As a result, the people who expose the lies are ignored. As I mentioned already, Laura Ingram published a television report that provides conclusive proof that another journalist lied about what Trump said, and many citizens have posted evidence of other journalists who lied to us or deceived us, but Ingram and the other people are ignored by the police, courts, schools, military, and government officials.

I am not implying that Ingram or other people who expose crimes are honest people. Actually, as I wrote years ago here, the best method for a criminal to fool people into trusting him is for him to pretend that he is a crime investigator. If he exposes a few crimes, he will get credibility for being an honest person, thereby making it easy for him to deceive people about the crimes that he wants to protect.

Laura Ingram, and all of the other journalists, are lying to us on a regular basis, and as I have pointed out in other documents, almost all of the "truth seekers" and "investigators" of the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, and other crimes are "wolves in sheep's clothing" who are also trying to manipulate us.

To confuse the issue, the journalists and "truth seekers" often expose one another's crimes, which can fool us into believing that some of them are honest, but the evidence suggests that they are fighting each other for control of the world. In other words, their exposing of one another is analogous to the fight between Al Capone and Bugs Moran.

As I have explained in other documents, criminals are best described as "abnormally defective" humans, or as having "below-average mental qualities". They are not "evil". Being defective, their relationships and thoughts are inferior to that of "normal" people. Therefore, they are more abusive with one another, and their relationships are more unstable.

Criminals frequently get into fights with each other. Don't mistake their fights as a sign of their honesty. They are not a unified group of people who work together. The main division between the criminals who have gotten control of our nations, as of 2020, seems to be those who support pedophilia and murder rituals, and those who do not.

In communist nations, journalists are arrested if they disobey the government officials, but it is extremely difficult to have a journalist arrested in a democracy because journalism is considered as a "business", and both a democracy and a free enterprise system is based on the theory that the majority of people are so intelligent, educated, and responsible that they will make wise decisions about which businesses to support, and which to drive into bankruptcy. The consumers are supposed to ensure that the media companies are providing honest and useful news reports.

Unfortunately, the majority of people have proven over and over that they cannot make wise decisions about managing a society. Three of the reasons are:

1) Consumers can make wise decisions about businesses only in primitive economies that have only a few small businesses, such as those that bake bread or make shoes. In our modern world, the economy is much too large, complex, and confusing.

2) We want to entertain ourselves, not deal with the complex problems of society. We are more concerned with ourselves than with the team. We prefer to run away and hide from the complex problems of society, just like sheep running away from a wolf.

When a sheep is caught by a wolf, the other sheep run away rather than fight the wolf. The attitude of the sheep is, "You should have done a better job of watching for wolves."

Humans inherited that selfish attitude to protect ourselves rather than protect the team. I have referred to this attitude as "buyer beware". For example, when somebody is cheated by a business, most people have the attitude, "You should have been more careful." This is the attitude of sheep.

Since those of us who believe the 9/11 attack was an Israeli false flag operation are in a small minority, we must repeatedly put tremendous pressure on our friends and relatives to look at the evidence.
Most people must be put under a lot of peer pressure to face the problems of society, and even more pressure to get involved with helping the team deal with those problems.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult for a minority of people to put the majority under pressure because human emotions cause us to assume that the majority is correct.

We have cravings to follow the crowd, not a small minority. We regard people who behave differently as potentially dangerous.

Therefore, when we tell the majority of people that they have been lied to about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other events, their emotions of suspicion and fear are triggered.

However, if the situation were reversed – if the majority of people believed that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack and other events – then it would be very easy for us to convince the minority to join the crowd and get involved with acknowledging the abuse and helping to stop it.

3) Some people don't realize that they are being abused. An example are the people who lack the intellectual ability and/or education to realize that the Apollo astronauts should have seen stars during the trip to and from the moon, and on the moon.

There are also some people who have the intelligence to understand the Apollo astronauts should have been able to see stars, lightning, and auroras just as easily as these astronauts in the space station, but humans and animals don't want to think. We want to entertain ourselves, not perform analyses.

If we could measure our resistance to thinking, we would create a bell curve. The people who have the most resistance to thinking will often be oblivious to what the other people regard as obvious, even though some of those non-thinking people will have extreme intelligent. In order for a person to achieve his intellectual potential, he must be willing to put time and effort into thinking about issues.

People should get credit for exposing unacceptable journalism

Businesses reward employees who find ways to improve their products or social environment, and who identify inefficiency, or who expose the crimes of other employees. However, no nation rewards citizens for finding ways to improve the nation.

My suggestion is to experiment with a society in which we follow the philosophy of the successful businesses. Specifically, the citizens should be encouraged and rewarded for finding improvements to the nation. In that type of society, Laura Ingram would be given credit for noticing and identifying the journalist who deliberately lied about what Trump had said.

However, this policy would require that society be able to protect the person from retaliation by the criminal. This is not possible in the USA. We need to experiment with a different policy towards crime, such as evicting criminals so that they cannot get revenge on the witnesses, policemen, or judges. My suggestion is that we exile the criminals.

We will not know how my suggestions would affect a city until we find the courage to experiment with these policies, but I suspect that over time these policies will result in the incompetent officials, teachers, business leaders, and journalists being fired, and those that are corrupt would be exiled. This in turn would create a nation in which the leaders become increasingly honest, talented, and respectable.

Was Floyd involved with a false flag operation?

Those of you who read my documents should realize that a network of Jews are constantly staging false flag operations for a variety of reasons. Those Jews also sacrifice their own people, and at the end of a false flag operation they sometimes kill the fools who participated in order to ensure they cannot expose the crime. Therefore, don't assume that crazy, violent, or disgusting behavior is too appalling to be possible. For example, it is extremely difficult to believe that Paul McCartney died or was murdered in 1966, and was replaced, but take a look at the evidence.

Don't try to understand other people by looking at yourself

Each of us tries to understand the behavior of other people by trying to figure out how we would behave in their situation. This method is fairly accurate only when the person we are trying to understand has a mind that is similar to ours. It does not work with people who have significantly different intellectual or emotional characteristics.

It is difficult to believe that officer Chauvin deliberately hurt (or killed) George Floyd as part of a false flag operation to create hatred of the police, but we should consider that possibility. It is also possible that the man who told the police that Floyd had used counterfeit money and was "not in control of himself" was also part of the false flag operation.

Our natural tendency is to assume that each of us is the standard to judge humans. We try to understand other people by trying to figure out how we would behave in their position. Our natural tendency is to assume that if we would never do something, nobody else would do it, either. For three examples:

• If you are a man, are you interested in raping little boys, including your own son? If not, you might dismiss those type of accusations as absurd.

• If you are a woman, are you interested in getting pregnant for the purpose of providing a baby for a murder ritual? If not, you might dismiss Vicki Polin's accusations that her relatives are doing that.

• Are you interested in eating somebody else's poop? If not, you might ignore the accusations that some people do that.

We cannot judge people by what we do. We must realize that there are people whose brains are not the same as ours. Although we all have the exact same physical and mental characteristics, there are subtle differences in those characteristics. Furthermore, a lot of people's brains are defective. Don't assume that you are such a super genius that you can understand the mind of a man who is mentally ill.

It may seem absurd that officer Chauvin deliberately killed George Floyd, but we ought to consider that possibility because Chauvin spent a lot of time kneeling on Floyd. Normally when a policeman kneels on somebody, it is to restrain them while he puts on handcuffs, but Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd for quite a while after they had restrained Floyd. We could interpret that long period of kneeling as a sign that he was waiting for somebody to record video of Floyd crying about having difficulty breathing.

It is also possible that Chauvin did not want to hurt Floyd and was only trying to instigate hatred of the police. It is possible that Chauvin had no idea that Floyd had circulatory and other health problems. In other words, the event may have been a false flag operation that was supposed to be the abuse of a black man, but ended up becoming the death of a black man. That could also explain why the Minnesota authorities wanted to put Chauvin in jail so quickly. Specifically, they wanted him put somewhere where he could not expose the operation.

Why would anybody want to instigate racial fights?

I have many articles to show evidence that Jews have tried many times to instigate fights between men and women, liberals and conservatives, different religious groups, different races, and between the wealthy and the poor people. Criminals benefit when we fight with each other, and criminals suffer when we work together as a team.

Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein were eventually put in jail, and that must have frightened a lot of the other influential pedophiles who had been protected for decades. Some of the pedophiles are likely to be looking for a way to destroy or get control of the police departments.

It is possible that Chauvin was willing to participate in a risky false flag operation because he has committed some type of crime, and he is being blackmailed into participating. Or, maybe he is one of the frightened pedophiles.

It is also possible that Chauvin participated because he was fooled into thinking that he was helping the nation in some manner. If you find it difficult to believe that a policeman could be tricked into participating in a false flag operation, consider how many millions of people were tricked into participating in the world wars, the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing hoax, and other crimes.

It is easy to deceive people

Humans inherited the crude emotions and behavior of animals, and criminals take advantage of our crude characteristics. For example, men have intense cravings to be important, and criminals exploit that craving by tricking men into believing that they will become important if they do something in particular. For example, millions of Americans, Germans, Japanese, and British killed one another during two world wars because they had been fooled into thinking that they were heroes for fighting their "evil" enemies.

It is especially easy to fool a person with a lie that he wants to believe. For example, we do not want to die, so it is easy to fool a person into believing that by praying to a particular entity, and by regularly donating money to his spokesmen, he will go to heaven and have a pleasant and eternal life.

Another example of how people can easily be fooled into believing what they want to believe is how easily people are fooled into blaming their nation's problems on a foreign nation. Our natural tendency is to be arrogant jerks who blame other people for our problems.

For example, millions of Americans have been fooled into believing that drug dealers in Turkey and Columbia are causing the American children to become drug addicts.

Likewise, there are millions of people in China who have been fooled into believing that their nation is suffering because the people in Hong Kong and Taiwan want to be independent of China, and because Japan is abusing them, and because foreign nations are taking fish from the South China Sea.

China has improved significantly during the past few decades, but not because of the Chinese people who want to conquer Taiwan or chase other nations away from the South China Sea. Rather, China has improved as a result of the Chinese people who were willing to learn a useful skill and do some useful work.

Unfortunately, we do not want to look critically at ourselves and acknowledge the evidence that each of us is our own worst enemy, and that every nation is its own worst enemy. We need a lot of self-control and intelligence in order to behave better than the stupid animals.

The hypocrisy of the liberals is horrifying

The people who are complaining about the death of George Floyd are trying to create the impression that they are loving, peaceful people who abhor violence and abuse by the police and government. In reality, they are unbelievably hypocritical, selfish, arrogant, and disgusting.

If we could remove the secrecy in our society and keep track of who among us is truly advocating violence, hatred, censorship, and suppression of free speech, we would discover that it is coming mainly from the liberals, socialists, Marxists, and communists. Two of many examples that I mentioned in other documents (such as this) are:

   • Global Warming
They do not want us to have free speech about global warming. They attack those of us who disagree with them, and they slander us with such insults as "climate change denier". Some of them want climate change deniers to be fired, arrested, punished, tortured, or killed.

   • Feminism
James Damore was fired, and possibly blacklisted, because the liberals do not tolerate differences of opinion. They hate, attack, insult, fire, arrest, punish, or kill everybody who disagrees with them.

The liberals frequently boast about how wonderful they are, and that they love all people and want everyone to have freedom, but they insult some of us as Nazis, fascists, dictators, and bullies. If those liberals were to get control of the nation, they would create the type of disgusting government that we see in communist nations and in such movies as 1984.

Don't mistake life imprisonment for nonviolence

A lot of people boast that they are too nonviolent and loving to support the execution of criminals. They boast that it is more humane and kind to let the dangerous criminals live the rest of their life in a jail or mental hospital. However, these issues are personal opinions, not right or wrong issues.

My personal opinion is that executing a criminal is putting a miserable person out of his misery, whereas forcing a person to spend his life in a cage, or a mental hospital, is torturing him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the remainder of his life.

Furthermore, from the point of view of society, executing a criminal is the most sensible option for many reasons, such as:
• Keeping criminals in jails and mental hospitals requires employees that I would describe as having an undesirable job. Therefore, executing criminals reduces the number of undesirable jobs.

• Keeping criminals alive in a cage requires we provide them with a lot of food, clothing, and other resources. Executing the criminals reduces the need for society to provide those resources, thereby reducing the burden on society.

• Executing criminals eliminates the possibility that they escape from their cages, which in turn prevents them from committing more crimes, causing more suffering, and wasting more resources.

• Keeping criminals in cages requires that we build and maintain facilities for those cages, which requires labor and resources, and the space taken by those facilities could have been used for more pleasant activities, such as parks, gardens, theaters, museums, restaurants, or apartments.

Our emotions cause us to want to hurt the people, animals, and objects that hurt us, but there is no benefit to it. Torturing a criminal is as wasteful as torturing mosquitoes, fleas, and rats.

What would you think if a person was capturing the rats that enter his home, and then keeping them in jails for the rest of their lives? What would be the benefit? He might get some emotional titillation by thinking about how the rats are suffering in the cages, but he would be wasting his time and resources. He would have a better life if he executed the rats in a quick and efficient manner, and put his time and resources into more pleasant and productive activities.

When we torture a criminal, we are appeasing an emotion that we inherited from our animal ancestors. We do not benefit from torturing creatures. Rather, we are pandering to our primitive animal ancestors that died millions of years ago. It would be more sensible for us to ignore those crude emotional cravings, and do what is the most intellectually sensible.

Don't mistake an introvert for a polite person

A lot of liberals are introverts, and introverts tend to be quiet during conversations, which creates the impression that they are polite and tolerant of different opinions. However, introverted and extroverted behavior are symptoms of emotional problems.

There are a lot of women who regard introverted adults as being cute and adorable because those adults resemble young children. We must expect young children to be quiet, easily frightened, and shy, but they should outgrow this. Adults who continue to behave like children are not adorable. The introverts and extroverts are social misfits, and they should be considered as mentally ill.

We should do a better job of recognizing intellectual and emotional disorders. We should stop ignoring problems, and stop making excuses for people with undesirable behavior.

What would happen if we were to put all of the introverts into their own nation? What would their nation be like? Would they have crime? Would their government or media be more honest than ours?

Nobody can be certain of what a nation of introverts would be like, but I suspect that it would have all of the problems that other nations have, but worse. The reason is because the introverts have a lot of trouble coping with people and social problems, so they would have more trouble than normal people with working together as a team and providing themselves with quality leadership. That would make it more difficult for them to form stable and efficient businesses, social clubs, factories, government agencies, and recreational activities. They would probably have a lot of trouble dealing with crime, also, because introverts are not likely to make effective police officers.

Defective people are a random sample of the population

When you regard introverts as people with mental disorders, then you should realize that if we were to analyze the introverts, we would find that they resemble a random sample of the population. Specifically, some introverts would be stupid and some would be intelligent, and some would be tall and others would be short. There would also be introverts who are pedophiles, homosexuals, alcoholic, obese, and anorexic.

Another way to understand this concept is to consider the people who have crooked teeth. If we were to put all of the people with crooked teeth into their own nation, would their nation be different from the other nations? Aside from needing a lot more dentists, their nation would likely have the same problems with crime, pedophilia, corruption, inefficiency, divorce, alcoholism, obesity, and drug abuse.

To complicate this issue, the introverts and the people with crooked teeth are not truly a random sample of the population. The reason is because people with those problems are slightly more common among the poor people because poor people tend to be more defective than normal people, so the poor people are more likely to produce children who have more defects. Therefore, a nation of introverts or people with crooked teeth is likely to be a nation of people who are slightly lower in "genetic quality" than the people of other nations.

However, ignore that complexity to understand the concept I'm trying to explain, which is that we should not make the mistake of assuming introverts are polite or well behaved. We should instead regard introverts as "ordinary people with a particular mental disorder". Likewise, we should regard people with crooked teeth as "ordinary people with a particular dental disorder".

We have strong emotional cravings to take care of children, and that emotion can be triggered by crippled people, introverts, and other people who are somewhat defenseless or helpless, but we need to exert some self-control and pass judgment on whether somebody truly needs our help. Some of the crippled people, homeless people, introverts, alcoholics, and unwanted children are mentally disturbed, dangerous, untrustworthy, and irresponsible.

We should not feel sorry for somebody just because he has a problem. All living creatures are defective. We should not let people intimidate us into believing that their particular defects are so significant that they deserve pity or special privileges.

My complaints about introverts may seem to be of no importance, but if we put more effort into understanding human behavior and our genetic disorders, the future generations will be able to do a better job of identifying a person's disorders. That would allow them to help each person cope with his particular defects. If a person was unable to deal with his problems, they would realize that they should remove him from society before he causes trouble, rather than give him pity.

In the world today, by comparison, no nation makes any attempt to help people identify their physical or mental disorders, so no nation is helping people to deal with their problems. No nation is even encouraging people to admit that each of us is imperfect. No nation will evict destructive people, either.

Instead, most people ignore genetic disorders, and the result is that the people with physical and mental disorders often suffer miserable or lonely lives. When the misfits behave in destructive manners, we feel sorry for them or punish them. This is not intelligent behavior; this is animal behavior. This behavior feels natural to us because humans are animals, but we must stop doing what feels good and start doing what makes the most intellectual sense.

It would be more sensible to study human behavior and try to figure out how to ensure that the future generations are in better mental and physical health, and living in a more pleasant, crime free environment.

The irrational policies of the liberals are frightening

A more frightening characteristic of the people who call themselves liberals and socialists is that many of them show evidence of having defective intellectual abilities. In other words, they are not "stupid" people; they are "defective" people.

To understand the difference between stupidity and a defective intellectual ability, consider the difference between a monkey and a human. It does not make sense to say a monkey is analogous to a mentally ill human. It makes more sense to say a monkey is analogous to a stupid human, or a human child.

Every liberal is much more intelligent than a monkey, but a lot of liberals display defective intellectual characteristics. The end result is that they frequently produce thoughts that are vague, confusing, twisted, or nonsensical. Many of their thoughts are indistinguishable from the nonsense that is created by the SCIgen software.

By comparison, a lot of conservatives are stupid, and some are uneducated also, but their brains are functioning in a much better manner. The stupid conservatives produce stupid thoughts, but we will be able to understand their reasoning.

For example, the conservatives who want abortions to be illegal are producing thoughts that "make sense." They can recognize that a human fetus is alive, and that an abortion kills the fetus. Since they do not want to kill people who have never caused any harm, they do not want to support the killing of a fetus.

Their reasoning is valid, and it shows that their brain is functioning properly. They simply lack the intelligence to understand the complexity of the abortion issue.

To a child and a stupid adult, the issue of abortion is a simple yes/no question of whether or not we should kill a fetus. In reality abortion is a complex issue that requires making decisions about what we should do about genetic disorders, unwanted children, and pedophile networks that exploit and abuse the defective and unwanted children.

The conservatives have higher quality intellectual abilities than the liberals. As a result, the conservatives, even those that are stupid, can perform a lot of useful work, and they can be friendly, honest, dependable, responsible, and useful team members. They can produce food, repair automobiles, build houses, provide a pleasant environment for their children, and supervise assembly lines, and perform scientific research.

If we were to remove the secrecy that we provide everybody and observe how each of us treats our family members and coworkers, I suspect that we would notice that the liberals tend to have the more psychotic behavior in their homes and their jobs, and that the conservatives tend to treat people in a more pleasant, sensible manner.

Liberals seem more likely to become superheroes

All people are arrogant, and all men have intense cravings to be at the top of the social hierarchy. We like to think of ourselves as extremely intelligent, educated, and wise. However, I think that if we could measure our arrogance, we would find that liberals, as a group, are more likely to think of themselves as superheroes than other people.

For example, in 2019, Seth Vargo became so upset that President Trump and the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wanted to deport illegal aliens that he decided to stop allowing ICE from using the software he created. His explanation is that ICE is:
"... best known for their inhumane treatment, denial of basic human rights, and detaining children in cages.
In response, I have removed my code from the Chef ecosystem. I have a moral and ethical obligation to prevent my source from being used for evil."

Vargo has essentially climbed onto a tall pedestal, and is insulting and slandering ICE, Trump, and other people as "evil". I do not think Vargo is demonstrating "stupidity". Rather, I think he is demonstrating a "defective intellectual ability" and abnormally extreme arrogance.

He and a lot of other liberals regard themselves as superheroes who are moral, ethical, nonviolent, and loving, and they accuse people who have different opinions of being evil, unethical, immoral, violent, hateful, Nazis, fascists, sexists, racists, anti-Semites, climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, and other nonsensical insults.

I suggest changing our laws to allow us to arrest Seth Vargo for slander and false accusations for insulting ICE for being "evil", "inhumane", and putting "children in cages". People who get as much publicity as he does should meet higher standards than ordinary people.
A lot of government policies could be criticized as idiotic, wasteful, or ineffective. However, if Seth Vargo was capable of thinking properly, he would react to a useless government policy by providing us with an impressive analysis to expose the flaws of the policy, and he might have some impressive suggestions on how we could improve the policy.

He would not behave like an arrogant superhero who insults the government as "evil", and who boasts about his morality and ethics.

If every person who had a disagreement with a government policy were to behave like Seth Vargo, then most of us would be accusing some government agency of being evil, and we would be refusing to cooperate with that agency. Some carpenters would refuse to do work for the IRS; some plumbers would refuse to do work for the military; some technicians would refuse to provide electricity to their city government; and retail stores, farmers, gasoline stations, and other businesses would refuse to sell their products to various government agencies.

Unfortunately, we will not improve our nation when people behave like arrogant superheroes who insult other people as "evil", and who try to hurt the team members that they have disagreements with.

We will improve our nation when we work as a team to analyze our problems, discuss issues, consider alternative opinions, and experiment with changes.

Although I am saddened and disgusted with Vargo's arrogant, self-righteous behavior, some people were impressed. For example, Coraline Ehmke was inspired to propose that we add the following paragraph to the license agreement for open source software:

The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Imagine if the businesses that produce guns, knives, razor blades, ammonia, and other dangerous items were putting notices on their products that their products are not to be used to harm the underprivileged individuals. Do you think that would improve the lives of the underprivileged people?

ZDNet has more information about these issues here and here, but I don't think those documents clarify anything. Rather, I think those documents provide more evidence that all of these people are intellectually defective.

Who among us are the "underprivileged" individuals?

Coraline Ehmke is one of millions of liberals, socialists, communists, and Marxists who believe that they are superheroes who are saving the underprivileged, the disadvantaged, the downtrodden, the underdogs, the impoverished, the deprived, and the less fortunate people from the evil aristocrats, white supremacists, Nazis, climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, sexists, racists, bigots, anti-Semites, and ass-holes.

However, those superheroes don't have any sensible explanation of who belongs in the "underprivileged" category. Seth Vargo and Coraline Ehmke, for example, consider illegal aliens to be "underprivileged". However, I would say that illegal aliens are "criminals".

Furthermore, the illegal aliens also regard themselves as criminals. That is why they are secretive and deceptive about their citizenship status, and it is why they are frightened of the police and ICE. They don't regards themselves as "underprivileged". They are fully aware that they are criminals who are violating our laws, but they don't care.

This creates the ridiculous situation in which liberals such as Vargo and Ehmke believe that they are superheroes for protecting people who regard themselves as "criminals".

As I will point out in the following paragraphs, there are only a few groups of people who can truly claim to be among the underprivileged, abused, neglected, hated, and tormented.

Why do we care so much about physical appearances?

I pointed out in other documents that animals and humans are very concerned about the visual appearance of their spouse and the members in their group. Every animal and human has an emotion that causes us to be attracted to certain visual characteristics, and to regard other characteristics as "ugly".

The reason this emotion developed is because when a creature has significant visual differences from other creatures of the same species, it has a greater chance of having internal differences, also. Since most genetic differences are harmful rather than beneficial, animals and humans will produce higher-quality children and more successful teams if they avoid the creatures that are ugly.

To rephrase this concept, an ugly person is not necessarily dangerous or defective, but if we could measure defects, we would find that ugly people have more defects than good-looking people, and their defects are more serious.

However, exactly which visual features each of us regards as "ugly" depends upon our genetic qualities. Since each of us is a haphazard jumble of genetic characteristics, each of us is attracted to slightly different visual features, and we are repelled by slightly different features.

For animals and prehistoric humans, nature decided which animals had appropriate "standards of beauty". The animals and prehistoric humans that were the most successful in reproducing and forming teams were those who were repelled by the visual features that were most likely to be indications of undesirable internal qualities, such as non-symmetrical faces and bodies.

Today, however, evolution no longer works for us, and this is resulting in people with an increasingly wider variety of opinions about who is good looking and who is ugly. The people who make inappropriate decisions will have less pleasant and less stable marriages, and their children will be more defective, but that will not matter in a modern society because we have so many assistance programs, such as alimony, child support, Medicare, welfare, and foster homes. After dozens of generations, there will be extremely noticeable differences between people in regards to what they regard as attractive and ugly.

It should be noted that this emotion also affects our attraction to animals, plants, clothing, art, and other items. For example, when we purchase a product, we avoid those that have visual defects in the packaging. This reason is exactly the same as why we prefer a visually attractive spouse. Specifically, when something is defective on the outside, an emotion is triggered to cause us to be afraid that it may be defective on the inside.

Most consumers are afraid to purchase a can of food if the can is dented. A university posted this document to provide consumers with some advice about when to be fearful of a dented can.

Our fear of ugliness is resulting in farmers that are concerned with the visual appearance of fruits and vegetables more than their taste, contamination by toxic pesticides, and health qualities. Ideally, our leaders would provide consumers with guidance rather than let them be frightened by their emotions.

The reason I mention this issue of ugliness is because Coraline Ehmke is a transgender, which means she suffers from a very serious genetic mistake. She is analogous to an extremely dented can of soup.

You may not regard her as ugly on the outside, but the concept that I just mentioned about ugliness applies to her. Specifically, she is showing evidence of a serious genetic disorder, so we should wonder if her genetic disorders are limited to the sexual areas of her brain. Or is her brain suffering from some other serious defects, also? Is that why she was impressed by Seth Vargo?

There have been so many people throughout history who have come to the conclusion that artists are more mentally unstable than the ordinary people that Wikipedia has this entry about this issue. What would we find if we analyzed mental characteristics of other groups of people?

If we could remove the secrecy that we provide everybody, and analyze everybody's mind, relationships, behavior, and goals, we might discover that the transgender people, ugly people, and homosexuals are more likely to have mental problems, such as shyness, intellectual disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar problems, and hallucinations. We might also discover that their relationships tend to be more unstable, abusive, and unpleasant. They might also have more trouble following the rules of society.

The people with genetic disorders want us to feel sorry for them, but pity will not help them, or prevent future genetic disorders. A better reaction is to remove secrecy, study these issues, and experiment with restricting reproduction in order to reduce the number of defective, miserable, dishonest, violent, and neurotic people.

Every person is biased

The people who complain about "white privilege" and "white supremacy" have a valid complaint because it is true that Caucasians are biased in favor of other Caucasians. However, this concept applies to every group of people. For example, black Americans are biased in favor of other black Americans, and within Africa, different groups of Africans are biased in favor of their particular group. Chinese people are biased in favor of Chinese people, and within China, the different groups of Chinese are biased in favor of their particular group. Religious people are biased in favor of people of the same religion.

If we could measure bias we might also discover that women are biased in favor of women, and that children are biased in favor of children, and that midgets are biased in favor of other midgets.

We also have a tendency to behave in this way with our professions. Specifically, people of a certain profession are likely to look more favorably at other people in that same profession, as if they are members of the same tribe.

It is also interesting to note that this concept even applies to more intangible associations between us. For example, when there is a path in the city in which there are bicycle riders, joggers, and walkers using the same path, a bicycle rider will sometimes acknowledge another bicycle rider by waving, nodding their head, or saying hello, and the joggers will sometimes do the same with other joggers. However, the bicycle riders are not likely to say hello to the joggers, or vice versa.

When one of the bicycle riders decides to go jogging, he is likely to ignore the bicycle riders that he does not know and switch to acknowledging the other joggers.

The reason we do this is because we are social animals. We want to be a member of a group. We do not want to be alone. We look for opportunities to be a member of a group.

Our tendency to form groups is not "bad". Rather, the trouble comes from our tendency to assume that our group is superior, and that other groups are potential enemies.

Our crude cravings to form arrogant, paranoid groups cause us to be selfish, arrogant, and biased. It is idiotic for black people to whine about the bias of white people because every race of African, and every race of Chinese, and every race of Indian, etc., is just as biased and arrogant as the Caucasian races.

If we had the technology to truly measure bias or arrogance, we would find that there are some subtle differences between the different races of people, but until that technology is developed, and until we see some evidence that one race is more biased than another, we should assume that all races are equally biased, and we should tell the people who whine about white supremacy or white privilege to shut up.

There is widespread and abusive discrimination!

To complicate the issue of bias and discrimination, there are certain groups of people who are truly abused, discriminated against, mistreated, and tormented. However, it is not "black people". Rather, it is the people who are ugly, obese, stupid, mentally ill, retarded, or have weird personalities.

Earlier I mentioned that Seth Vargo and Coraline Ehmke want to protect people from discrimination and abuse, but the only people who can truly claim to be victims of abuse and discrimination, and on a regular basis, are the particular groups I listed in the previous paragraph.

Tony Timpa is an example. People of every race, nationality, and religion insult, ignore, and treat mentally ill people as trash. The end result is that many of those people have a difficult time getting a job, or finding a friend or spouse. Some of those people end up homeless, and some commit suicide when they can no longer handle the rejection and abuse.

In every nation, all throughout history, we find that the ugly, stupid, mentally ill and other people are being tormented all throughout their lives. They are the only people who can truly complain about being discriminated against, abused, and tormented. The black people, by comparison, are not suffering from discrimination, so they should be told to shut up and stop whining.

Why do humans torment the defective humans? Because we inherited this behavior from animals. Animals, especially when they are young, have a strong craving to torment the defective members. The purpose is to assist natural selection by killing the genetically defective members, or by making it difficult for them to reproduce. An example is the chicken in the photo to the right who has had a lot of feathers plucked out.

We must expect chickens to pluck at each other's feathers because chickens cannot think very well. However, humans should start exerting some self-control over our animal cravings and stop tormenting the defective people. We should regard ourselves as cruel when we give life to a defective baby, and then push it aside to suffer constant and unbelievable levels of loneliness, rejection, unemployment, and abuse. We should describe this behavior as "torturing the unwanted people, and throughout their entire lives".

I would say that it is especially cruel to do nothing as the unwanted children are used by pedophiles.

Furthermore, allowing the pedophiles to abuse the unwanted children is also allowing them to blackmail people, which in turn allows the pedophile network to get control of the FBI, military, Congress, police departments, businesses, sports groups, journalists, and schools.

Why are so many women involved with the protests?

If women were as intelligent as they claim, wouldn't at least a few of them have some intelligent remarks about the death of George Floyd? And wouldn't a few women have some intelligent remarks about the dishonest journalists, the Apollo moon landing, and the 9/11 attack? And if women were truly better behaved than men, wouldn't the protests and riots be dominated by men? Why did so many women join the protests? Why were so many women involved with looting and arson?

The high percentage of women at the protests is more evidence that women are less intelligent, more easily manipulated, and more likely to follow peer pressure. Women and children need leadership more than men do. Unfortunately, there is no leadership in a democracy or a free enterprise system, and the feminists are discouraging fathers, husbands, and brothers from providing leadership to their daughters, wives, and sisters.

Of course, some of the women at those protests might not be "normal" women. Some of them may be transgenders. If we would remove the secrecy that we provide people and study who is at those protests, we would have a much better understanding of why certain people decide to participate.

Who is joining the protests?

If we could remove the secrecy that we provide everybody and analyze the mental characteristics of the people who join the protests for George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Rodney King, and other criminals, what would we discover?

The protesters are not likely to be a random sample of the population. There is something different about them, but what is it? Are they people that you or I would admire? I don't think so. I suspect they would be what most of us describe as below-average in mental health and behavior. They are people that we try to avoid. They are the misfits and troublemakers, not the respectable people. I also suspect that we would discover that some of the protesters are Jews and their cohorts who are participating only to instigate fights.

It is idiotic for us to allow secretive people to have public tantrums and destroy public property, and let them get away with referring to their abuse as "freedom of speech", or their "right to express their anger", or their "right to protest injustice".

After some protesters claimed a block of Seattle to be their "autonomous zone", Mayor Jenny Durkan defended their behavior as being "more like a block party atmosphere". Is she another example of a woman who cannot think properly? Or is she working with the crime network that is trying to instigate racial fights?

If we would eliminate secrecy, we would be able to get a better idea of who is trying to determine our future, and what their true goals are.

People who pander to abusive people are part of our problem

When we pander to the people who whine or hate, we encourage some of the most mentally disturbed, arrogant, violent, and hateful people to continue their whining, hatred, violence, and abuse. The people who pander to whiny, hateful, violent people are analogous to an idiot who foolishly believes that he is helping to put out a fire by appeasing it with gasoline.

We all have some relatives, friends, coworkers, and neighbors who are liberals, and some of them are "nice", and some of them are honest, but that does not justify allowing the violent and psychotic liberals to get away with abuse. It also does not justify allowing any of them to influence our future by voting. Being "nice" should not qualify a person to vote.

In addition to telling the hateful people to shut up, we need to tell the people who pander to the hateful people to get off their knees and stop encouraging disgusting behavior. If they do not stop their pandering, then they are part of the problem also.

It is especially destructive for a society to have leaders who bow in submission to disgusting people, such as in the photo to the right in which many Congress officials are bowing in submission to the people who whine about George Floyd's death.

As I mentioned here, we also need to convince the Europeans, especially the Germans, to stop pandering to the migrants, refugees, and Jews.

Everybody supports the killing of people

Everybody, except for some mentally ill people, will kill a person who is trying to kill them. We justify those killings as "self-defense".

A large percentage of the population will also kill a person who has hurt them badly. For example, many women and children would like to kill the men who have raped them. We justify those killings as "serving justice".

No "normal" person is truly nonviolent. The reason is because we all inherited the same set of emotions from our animal ancestors. We all inherited an emotion that — when triggered — causes us to become violent.

The most obvious proof that we all have this violent tendency is when we hurt ourselves or become frustrated, and we react by yelling, throwing objects, kicking objects, or destroying something. Even children display this behavior because the emotion is in our brain from birth, and it exists within us throughout our lives.

There are subtle differences in what will trigger our violence and hate, and subtle differences in the intensity of our emotions, but we all have the same emotions. All of us will lose our temper when angry or frightened, and all of us will hurt or kill whoever is threatening our life, or the lives of our children.

All of us have this violent tendency, but there are subtle differences in our emotional characteristics, self-control, and intellectual abilities. As a result of the subtle differences between us, some men will react with violence almost every time they hurt themselves or become frustrated, such as breaking golf clubs when they become frustrated with the game of golf, or yelling at their children for doing something that irritates them. Other men, in the exact same situation, might remain calm because they have a lower level of violence, more self-control, or a better ability to think.

To complicate this issue, this emotion is more easily triggered when we are suffering from some type of internal mental or physical pain. For example, when a person is suffering from a temporary pain, such as a headache or tooth ache, events that he would normally deal with calmly may trigger his anger and cause him to yell, throw objects, or become violent.

The people who are in a perpetual state of misery as a result of physical or mental disorders are likely to always react with anger much more easily, which means that they will frequently be angry.

Finally, to add more complexity to this issue, our intellectual abilities have an effect over our violent tendencies. For example, when a person with a defective intellectual ability tries to figure out why he is failing at his goals, or suffering from something, he might come to the conclusion that it is due to aristocrats, his parents, the corporations, or President Trump. By convincing himself that those people are ruling his life, his anger emotion can be triggered, causing him to want to react with violence towards those people. This can cause him to join protests in which he burns buildings, throws rocks at the police, and yells about the abuse of "The Corporations".

If a black man with a defective intellectual ability thinks about his misery, he might come to the conclusion that he is suffering as a result of racism and discrimination by white people. He may then want to be violent towards white people.

A woman with a defective thinking ability might come to the conclusion that she is suffering as a result of sexist men who have "installed glass ceilings" around the world. Since women are less violent than men, she may not want to engage in violence towards men, but she may encourage such violence.

We have different lists of enemies

We could summarize this concept by saying that everybody has violent tendencies, and that we all want to hurt and kill the people that we regard as threats to our lives. The difference between us is that we come to different conclusions about who is a threat to us. For some more examples of this:

• A lot of people have been convinced that drug dealers are causing their children to abuse drugs, and this triggers their anger and causes them to want to hurt or kill the drug dealers.

• During the 1950s and 1960s, some people wanted to kill the musicians who created rock 'n' roll music in order to protect the children from "The Devil's Music".

• Some vegetarians have become so angry towards people who eat meat that they stage protests at restaurants and in public streets, and if some of them were dictators of the world, they would punish or kill some of the people who eat meat.

• Some people have become so convinced that the earth's climate is being ruined by carbon dioxide that they become angry at the people who ridicule that theory. They regard those people as a threat to the planet, so they hate those people and want them silenced, punished, or killed.

• The people who have an unpleasant encounter with the police might come to the conclusion that it is because the police are abusing them simply because of their race, nationality, or religion, and that can cause them to become angry at the police, which in turn can cause the next confrontation to be even more unpleasant. To rephrase this, by convincing themselves that the police are abusing them, they make encounters with the police even worse by causing their behavior to become more irritating and suspicious to the police.

This concept also applies to women. Specifically, when a woman us to the conclusion that her problems are due to men, she will develop an attitude that "normal" men find unpleasant, thereby causing the normal men to avoid her. She will attract the lower quality men, which will result in unpleasant relationships, which in turn will convince her that she is correct that men are terrible creatures, thereby giving her an even worse attitude, which in turn makes her even more undesirable to men.

This concept also applies to single men. When a man becomes frustrated with finding a wife, and if he develops a "sour grapes attitude" or becomes an angry member of the MGTOW movement, he will make himself more undesirable to "normal" women. The only women who are likely to marry those type of men are those who are desperate for financial support, babies, a US citizenship, or something else that the man has. However, that type of abusive relationship will reinforce the man's attitude that women are abusive, selfish creatures.

Everybody has a "kill list"

If we could read everybody's mind, we would find that everybody has a list of people that they would like to kill. We might find that a particular liberal has a list which includes policemen, corporate executives, and military leaders. We might find that a particular black person has a list that is full of white people. We might find that a woman has a list that is full of men who support the belief that men and women are genetically different. We might find that a particular Jew wants to kill millions of non-Jews, and a particular Muslim wants to kill millions of Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists.

I have not tried to figure out which group of people spends the most time boasting about being nonviolent, but I suspect Jews do it the most, followed by liberals. Rather than ignore the people who boast about being nonviolent, and rather than tolerate their accusations that Nazis, fascists, the police, and the military are the violent groups, we should stand up to those people and point out that all people are violent, and that the only difference between us is who we want to censor and kill, and why we want them censored or killed.

We should judge a person by the list of people he would like to kill

Ideally, before we put a person into an influential position, we would find out who he wants to suppress or kill, and why. This would allow us to make better decisions about who we want influencing our future.

Do you want to be under the control of people who want to kill those of us who believe that men and women have genetic differences? How about being under the control of the Jews who want to kill "anti-Semites" and "Holocaust deniers"? Or how about the black people who want to kill the "racists" who have "white privilege"?

My suggestion is that we restrict the leadership positions to people who can restrict their killings to the people who are truly destructive to society, such as the murderers, pedophiles, and arsonists. We should not tolerate people who want to kill people simply for having disagreements of opinion, or simply because a person is competing against him for a leadership position, spouse, or sports contest.

Instead of judging a man by his college diploma, income, or automobile, judge him by who he wants to kill or censor.

Who is on the "kill list" of Abe Foxman? Who is on the "kill list" of Mike Bloomberg, Queen Elizabeth, Jared Kushner, and Angela Merkel?

Most people are easily manipulated and deceived

The people who are the most easily manipulated are those that come from honest families. Two reasons are:
1) During their childhood they become accustomed to trusting the people that they live with. They become adults who tend to trust other people.

2) As I mentioned earlier, each of us assumes that we are the standard to judge other people, so we assume that if we would not do something, nobody else would do it, either. This results in honest people who grew up in honest families coming to inaccurate conclusions by thinking such thoughts as,
"How could it be possible that we are lied to about 9/11, the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, or the world wars? Nobody would behave in such a dishonest manner!"

By comparison, children who grow up around dishonest people will become accustomed to being suspicious of other people. They will become adults who are more suspicious and difficult to deceive.

The honest people need pressure put on them to face the evidence that we are living among millions of dishonest, abusive, violent, and mentally disturbed people, and that many of these disgusting people are government officials, journalists, religious leaders, professors, doctors, policemen, military leaders, and Hollywood celebrities.

We resist dealing with society's problems

If we can convince the honest people that they are living among a lot of mentally disturbed criminals, we then have to deal with another problem of the human mind; namely, we don't want to deal with problems of society. Our natural tendency is to ignore abuse, not try to stop it.

Our ancestors are animals, not Adam and Eve, and as a result, we have the selfishness, apathy, and other characteristics that we see in the animals.

When a wolf attacks a sheep, the other sheep run away. They do not make any attempt to stop the wolf, or experiment with methods to prevent the wolves from attacking in the future. Humans inherited that same tendency to run away from problems. This is allowing small crime networks to cause tremendous suffering.

For example, the people who were setting fires and looting retail stores during the protests for Rodney King, George Floyd, and Rayshard Brooks were a very tiny percentage of the population. It would have been easy for the police, military, and citizens to deal with such a small group of people, but most people want to hide from such problems, not deal with it.

For example, did you notice that in this video that I mentioned earlier, people were recording the two white women (between 10 to 30 seconds) as they instigated violence, but nobody tried to capture them, identify them, or stop them. Likewise, in this video which I mentioned earlier, some people were using their cell phones to record the woman who started a fire in the Wendy's restaurant, but they were not trying to stop her, capture her, or identify her.

It would have been very easy for people to have captured those instigators and hold them for the police.

Likewise, a very tiny percentage of the population is lying to us about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and the 9/11 attack. It is very easy for us to get them out of our government, media, schools, military, and businesses, but most people want to run away and hide, like a bunch of stupid sheep.

Will the American people be fooled into accepting censorship and propaganda?

The American people are doing nothing to stop journalists from lying to us, withholding evidence, and suppressing people and opinions that they do not like. In May 2020, President Trump signed an executive order to prevent the social networks from censoring information, but even if it is successful in reducing some of the censorship, it will not stop journalists from lying to us or suppressing information.

In June 2020, the Center for Democracy and Technology responded to Trump's executive order with a lawsuit that claims that the Executive Order is "designed to deter social media services from fighting misinformation." Their lawsuit claims to be "protecting freedom of speech". Will the American public be fooled into believing the CDT lawsuit will protect us from President Trump?

The people at the CDT should be arrested for deception, rather than allowed to file such a fraudulent lawsuit. Unfortunately, the CDT is committing a crime that is probably too complex for the majority of people to understand, in which case most people will not regard the CDT as a group of criminals who are trying to abuse us.

Will the American people be fooled by "experts" into accepting secrecy?

The Minneapolis Police Department, and the journalists, are hiding the most important video of George Floyd. Rather than demand that the video be released, and rather than demand that we install more security cameras to provide better documentation of police confrontations, some journalists are promoting the theory that we should have fewer video cameras!

For example, this article claims that the cameras could "serve as a surveillance tool against people exercising their rights to free speech".

The journalist also complains that the police can choose which cameras are on and which are off, thereby allowing police to use the cameras to gather "evidence against suspects rather than to provide transparency".

The journalist also quotes mysterious "experts" who say that the cameras "can have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights".

The death of George Floyd shows that we need more and better quality surveillance video, not less of it. If we had surveillance video of Floyd when he was in the retail store, we would be able to see whether the man who called the police was correct that Floyd was "not in control of himself" and "awfully drunk", and we would be able to see how Floyd ended up lying down in the street with three policemen holding him down.

However, instead of pointing out the value of security video, and instead of demanding that the hidden and censored video be released to the public, the journalists are trying to fool us into believing that video cameras will hurt us and protect criminals! How many Americans will be deceived by this trick? How many Americans will be frightened by the mysterious "experts" who warn us about the "chilling effect" of surveillance cameras?

The journalists who create these reports should be arrested for deliberate attempts to deceive people. We should stop tolerating this abuse!

How many more times we allow these fraudulent protests?

The protests for Rodney King, George Floyd, and Rayshard Brooks are just three of the irrational protests that have been instigated by journalists. For example, in 2014, the journalists instigated hatred over the killing of Michael Brown, and a year later the journalists did it again for Freddie Gray.

The public is being manipulated over and over by the same trick.

The events are so similar to each other that I don't have to make much, if any, changes to some of the drawings I made years ago for other protests.

For example, I made the drawing to the right a few years ago for the Ferguson protests, and it applies to all of the other protests, including the George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks protests.

How many more times are the American people going to be fooled by this trick?

Are the American people ever going to become fed up with the abuse by the journalists?

The fact that the public never does anything about this problem is more evidence that democracies are hopeless. We are fools to expect the public to deal with these problems.

In 2011, a group of people participated in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, and for many weeks they regarded a small plot of land as belonging to them. In 2020, that idiotic situation repeated itself, but on a larger scale. Specifically, some protesters in Seattle claimed a small area of the city as their "autonomous zone".

As of 14 June 2020, the public has done nothing to stop the autonomous zone in Seattle, which allows their government representatives to do whatever they please about the issue. Many government representatives have decided to support the autonomous zones, which has encouraged protesters to plan these zones in other cities. The lack of leadership in this nation is more evidence that a democracy is analogous to a group of children without adult supervision.

Which black people have truly had tragic deaths?

A lot of people claim that Floyd's death was a "national tragedy", but I don't agree. I would say that two of the black people who have truly had tragic deaths are Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson. I would also say that their deaths are very suspicious.

I would also say that Michael Jackson's childhood was tragic. I would say that there are more tragedies occurring in Hollywood as a result of pedophiles and greedy parents than there are in the streets of Minneapolis, Ferguson, and Chicago as a result of the police.

However, most black people show no concern about the deaths of Jackson and Houston. I created the drawing below many years ago to show this bizarre attitude of the black people, and all I have to do is change one or more of the signs to update it for George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks.

Update 21 June 2020
Somebody just pointed out that Terrance Yeakey was another black man who had a tragic - and brutal - death. I mentioned Yeakey in my video, Painful Deceptions, but had forgotten about him. Here is an excerpt of the video "A Noble Lie" with some more information about Yeakey, but keep in mind that most of the "truth seekers" who create such videos are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Note also that the Wikipedia does not consider Yeakey to be "notable enough" to have an entry!

Guns will not protect us!

Another lesson to learn from the protests, riots, false flag operations, and wars is that none of the American citizens who own guns are doing anything to stop the abuse.

One of the reasons those citizens demand the right to have a gun is because they want to protect themselves and their property, but none of them are protecting themselves, or anybody else. Rather, they hide in their houses like frightened children while a tiny number of protesters burn buildings and loot stores, and while a small number of journalists deceive and manipulate the public, and while a small number of Jews instigate wars.

The people who own guns have proven over and over that they will not use their guns to protect the nation, or even protect themselves. The reason is because, as I have mentioned many times, they want a gun for the same reason that a child wants a teddy bear.

There is no benefit to allowing citizens to have guns. The only people who should have access to guns are people who are willing to get training on how to use them, and who have the courage to use them in a productive manner, such as defending the nation. Guns should not be treated as teddy bears or as entertainment devices.

What use are guns if we cannot kill the criminals?

Another reason it is ridiculous to let American citizens own guns is that the priority of the American legal system is to protect and pity the wretched refuse and huddled masses, not to identify and remove criminals. Therefore, citizens can be considered guilty of murder when they kill a criminal. A criminal can only be killed under certain circumstances.

Four policemen have been arrested as a result of Floyd's death, which shows that policemen can be considered guilty of murder when a criminal dies in a fight that the criminal started, and even if the policemen did not use a gun.

The killing of Rayshard Brooks is another example of this idiotic attitude. If a policeman cannot kill a person who is firing a Taser at him, and a Taser that he stole from the policeman, what if the Taser incapacitates the policeman for a few seconds, and then the criminal takes the policeman's gun and uses it to kill the policeman, or kill some citizen?

This attitude is giving preference to the criminals, not the police or citizens. Of course, that is what America was designed for. It was intended to be a refuge for the huddled masses and wretched refuse. It was a gathering place for criminals, weirdos, and freaks. It was not a nation for people who wanted high quality behavior.

Jail cannot reduce the violence between police and citizens

We are not going to reduce the number of violent confrontations between people and police if we continue to follow the same path that we are on right now. We must find the courage to try different policies. We must be willing to look critically at our policies and face the evidence that the existing policies have failed over and over, and without any exceptions. We must try a different path in life.

In the case of George Floyd, Rodney King, and many of the other people who were involved with violent confrontations with the police, all of those confrontations would have been avoided if our legal system had evicted those people from society the first time they had committed a crime.

We should face the evidence that the theory that we can cure criminals of their bad behavior by punishing them is a total failure. Actually, jail is worse than a failure because:

   a) Jail is destructive to society
Jails are a waste of our land, labor, and resources, and since the jail cannot cure the criminals, after they get out of jail, most of them commit more crimes, thereby tormenting the people over and over.

   b) Jail is destructive to the criminals
Instead of helping the criminals become better people, it makes life worse for them because when they are released from jail, they become more unemployable, and they have more trouble attracting friends and a spouse. In other words, instead of helping the criminals to become better people, it causes them to suffer even more, and that can result in some of them becoming even more involved with crime simply to survive.

We must stop trying to fix bad behavior and try something else, such as evicting the criminals. Since there will be some criminals that nobody wants, we must also create two "City of Exiles"; one for men and one for women.

Should we care if criminals die while fighting with the police?

The deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks bring up the important issue of whether we should be concerned if a criminal dies in a fight with the police. What should our priority be:
a) Protecting society from criminals.
b) Protecting criminals from harm when they choose to fight with the police.

Every nation tells their police officers to use the minimum force necessary when fighting with criminals, and to tolerate abusive behavior. As a result of this policy, the police try to subdue criminals with batons, pepper spray, tasers, neck restraints, arm-twisting, and tackling. When criminals try to escape from the police by running away, the police are not supposed to shoot at them. Rather, they are supposed to run after them while yelling something like: "Please Stop!"

When a criminal refuses to cooperate and allow a policeman to put handcuffs on him, the police are told to struggle with the criminal, as if they are in some type of unfair wrestling contest in which the policeman has to follow rules but the criminal does not.

These policies are designed to appease the American public, which has a strong "feel sorry for me" attitude, but as I have recommended many times in many documents, we should design policies according to what is best for society, not according to the particular desires of individual citizens or groups of people. We should analyze the advantages and disadvantages of policies from the point of view of society and the future generations.

What is the effect on society of telling the police to be tolerant of abuse, and to treat criminals in a nice manner? And what would be the effect if we were to switch to telling the police to be more concerned with stopping criminals than in protecting criminals?

If we could put copies of a nation into hundreds of test tubes, we could easily run experiments to find out how different policies affect the lives of the people, but that is impossible. Therefore, the only way we can determine the best policies for crime is to be willing to experiment with different policies.

The concept of experimenting with crime policies would frighten most people, but it's not as dangerous as our emotions make it appear. For one reason, we can easily change the policy if it turns out to be making our lives worse. We will not destroy ourselves simply by experimenting with our culture.

Should we give special privileges to elderly or crippled criminals?

Two policemen in Buffalo, New York, have been fired and arrested for causing Martin Gugino, a 75-year-old man, to fall to the ground, which caused him to bleed from his ear. The policemen then walked by, leaving him on the ground.

This incident is similar to the death of George Floyd in that the police did something that they routinely do to people who resist or fight with them, and which almost never results in harm to the person.

However, Gugino was too old and frail to handle a routine push, and he fell to the ground. The journalists and most government officials reacted by claiming that the policemen were abusive, and that we should feel sorry for Gugino.

The mayor of the city described Gugino as "a key and major instigator of people engaging in those activities" (ie, the violence, fires, and looting) which should classify Gugino as a criminal, which in turn should justify arresting him, but the journalists instead portrayed Gugino as an innocent elderly man who was abused by violent policemen. The journalists described Gugino as a "long-time peace activist" rather than as "a key and major instigator of criminal behavior".

There have also been incidents in which people in wheelchairs, or who have some other type of handicap, have been involved with protests or other destructive activities, and expected special treatment from the police because of their handicaps.

We have strong emotional cravings to be heroes, and to protect children, and this craving can cause people to want to become heroes who protect elderly people, people in wheelchairs, and people who are crippled. However, we must control our craving to be heroes and analyze situations before we act. We should first pass judgment on whether the elderly or crippled person truly needs our help, or whether they are criminals who are using their age or handicap in order to fool us into letting them get away with a crime, or in order to manipulate our opinions.

We should not assume that a person is what he appears to be. There have been numerous incidents in history in which criminals have dressed up as policemen or firemen, or they have pretended to be deaf, blind, or homeless. We are living in a world in which genetic disorders are rapidly increasing. We are surrounded by people with an amazing variety of mental disorders, and who are destructive, selfish, abusive, and neurotic. We must be more suspicious of people. We should not rush to the rescue of people who seem to need our help.

We should not provide elderly or crippled people with the special privilege to commit or instigate crimes. We should treat all criminals the same, regardless of their handicaps.

Trump was insulted for criticizing Gugino

A few days after Gugino was pushed by the police, Trump posted this remark on Twitter that Gugino "could be an ANTIFA provocateur" who was "appearing to scan police communications". The journalists responded by criticizing Trump for promoting a "conspiracy theory", and New York Governor Cuomo insulted Trump by claiming that his remark caused us to become "shocked again" and "disgusted again".

Why didn't the journalists or Governor Cuomo criticize the mayor for his accusation that Gugino was "a key and major instigator"? Probably because Trump is white and the mayor is African-American, which would provide us with another example of how the journalists - and some government officials - are deliberately trying to instigate race riots.

Incidentally, some people criticized the policemen for leaving Gugino on the ground, but the mayor said that the police are not allowed to provide medical services. So the police continued walking forward and left Gugino for the people behind them who had the authorization to deal with medical problems.

Should we tolerate the use of human shields?

Animals and humans have intense emotional cravings to protect babies. Therefore, an effective way to manipulate people is to threaten harm to a baby.

One black man brought his young child to one of the protests, and used his child as a shield to prevent the police from arresting or touching him. This brings up the issue of whether the black man should be allowed to do this, or whether he should be guilty of abusing children, or guilty of trying to manipulate the police into letting him get away with illegal behavior.

I mentioned in other documents that farmers do not protect seedlings. They protect the plants and trees that are fully grown, productive, and healthy. However, we do not apply this policy to humans because of our intense emotional craving to take care of babies.

A baby human is analogous to a seedling of an apple tree. A farmer does not know if a seedling will grow into a healthy apple tree that produces desirable apples, or whether it will become a sickly tree that ends up dying, or a tree that produces undesirable apples.

Likewise, we cannot yet determine whether a baby human will become a respectable adult, or whether the baby will become a criminal, lunatic, parasite, or antisocial weirdo.

When we allow people to use their children as human shields, we allow them to manipulate us into letting them get away with disgusting behavior. If the child that they are using as a shield is their own biological child, then we should regard that child as having the same disgusting genetic qualities as the parents, and therefore, it would make more sense from the point of view of society to treat the child as a criminal, also.

The police should show no concern about adults who are using their biological children as shields. The children should be regarded as small versions of criminals. The police should be under no obligation to protect the children.

Another way to understand this concept is to imagine a more extreme example. Imagine an adult who picks some wild mushrooms, but he is not sure if they are poisonous, so he feeds some to his child, and then he waits a day to see if his child gets sick or dies. Would you approve of parents using their children like that?

Our craving for children is so strong that when mentally defective people abuse their biological children, a government agency will take the children away and protect those children. However, if the children are the biological creations of genetically defective people, the children are likely to be genetically defective, also. From the point of view of the human race, it is detrimental to protect the children of genetically defective people. It is more sensible to prevent those people from reproducing.

Parents who use their children as shields should not be allowed to have any more children, and we ought to prohibit their children from reproducing, also. Reproduction should be restricted to people who demonstrate desirable behavior. Reproduction should not be regarded as a "right" that every person has.

The level of abuse is shocking

The people in influential positions of the world are so abusive that I am frequently shocked at what they get away with. A recent example is Dr. Kate Marvel, who claims that "white supremacy" is one of the reasons that we have global warming. She is pushing for "climate justice" and "racial justice", which she says are the same concept. Does that make sense to you? Take a look at her remark:
"... climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we'll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy."
Kate Marvel  @DrKateMarvel

She doesn't provide any details on how she plans to dismantle "white supremacy", or how it would improve the earth's climate.

The New York Times uses her as an expert to answer science questions, such as this question about which organizations she considers to be the most effective at dealing with climate change. In her answer is a remark that we need the CSLDF legal organization:
"The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is sadly necessary to protect scientists against spurious attacks."

She regards criticism of the global warming theory as "spurious attacks"! She has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, which provides more evidence of what I wrote about years ago; namely, that our math abilities come from an area of our brain that is separate from our "intelligence", thereby allowing a person to excel in math and physics while being mentally ill, stupid, or intellectually defective.

Some American teachers are also shockingly stupid, abusive, ignorant, neurotic, or dishonest. For example, Professor Mark McCoy of Southern Methodist University posted a message on Twitter to verify that Floyd was deliberately murdered by racist cops, and that there really is such a thing as "white privilege". His remark attracted a lot of attention, including by journalists.

McCoy said that when he was 18, the police arrested him for using a counterfeit $20 bill. He claims that he did not realize the bill was counterfeit. However, he did not fight with the police, so he spent only one night in jail. Why didn't he fight with the police? And why did he spend only one night in jail? His explanation is:
"The reason I didn’t resist arrest and the thing went the way it did is very much about my white privilege".

Does that remark make sense to you? There have been a lot of white people who got into fights with the police and were beaten, killed, or put in jail. Why didn't those white people benefit from their white privilege? Do only some white people have white privilege? If so, then white privilege is discriminating against white people.

A more sensible conclusion is that professors, such as McCoy, are either intellectually defective, or they are trying to manipulate us.

Furthermore, McCoy posted that message on 1 June 2020, which was before the autopsy was complete, and when crucial video segments were missing. McCoy showed no interest in waiting for the missing information. A college professor should have enough intelligence to realize that he should do some research rather than rush to conclusions.

Some people responded to McCoy with stories of how they also benefited from "white privilege". For example, Jacqueline Mosko wrote:
One time on a jog, I ran by a cop and he used his speed radar to tell me how fast I was going. We laughed. One time Ahmaud Arbery went for a jog, and racist civilians decided to take his life.

Professor McCoy, Jacqueline Mosko, and many other people are encouraging black people to believe that the white police are racists, and that white people really do have a mysterious, magical substance called "white privilege".

McCoy and the others might simply be intellectually defective, but we should consider that they are deliberately trying to instigate racial fights. Just as we should set higher standards for journalists, we should set higher standards for professors. Professors who try to deceive and manipulate us should be regarded as criminals, and arrested.

Journalists are also ruining our languages

Incidentally, a minor problem by not having standards for journalists is that we are allowing them to ruin our language by promoting idiotic or confusing expressions, such as:
• Claiming that an exercise will get our arms "crazy-toned".
• Describing an actress as "rocking a dramatic new look".
• Describing a penis as "junk", "family jewels", or "manhood".

What do you want your future to be?

There is no right or wrong policy in regards to crime, or any other cultural issue. We simply have to decide which of our options we want to experiment with.

Should we continue allowing the USA to be a gathering place for the wretched refuse and the huddled masses? Should we continue feeling sorry for the disadvantaged, the underdogs, the poor, the downtrodden, the uneducated, the stupid, the retarded, and the religious fanatics?

Should we continue to allow journalists, professors, government officials, police departments, Hollywood celebrities, and other people to get away with censoring important videos, deceiving us, lying to us, and conducting false flag operations?

Or should we change the purpose of the USA? Should we stop feeling sorry for the underdogs and switch to a nation that is dedicated to protecting and defending the honest and respectable people?

A lot of us who were born in the USA are descendants of wretched refuse or huddled masses, and some of the Americans and Australians are descendants of the criminals that England evicted. However, just because some of our ancestors were wretched refuse doesn't mean that we have to continue feeling sorry for criminals and freaks.

Let's experiment with new cities and new culture!

I think that it is impossible to fix the world because it would require getting billions of people to agree on what to do. It is difficult to get a few hundred people of the same race and nationality to agree on their future, so how can we expect billions of people to agree when they have significant differences in their intellectual abilities, education, emotional characteristics, and mental disorders?

Furthermore, most cities are disgusting. Scan through the photos of cities in Asia, India, Africa, and South America. I don't think any of the existing cities are worth saving.

We should design some new cities that are more attractive, cleaner, quieter, easier to maintain, and easier to travel around. I suggest experimenting with cities in which we live and work in clusters of tall buildings so that there is a lot of land for plazas, parks, recreational activities, bicycle paths, canals, ponds, and swimming areas, such as the drawing below.

Some Asians are planning neighborhoods like the one above (I modified the original image). When will the Europeans and Americans get involved with improving their cities?

We need adventurers, explorers, and pioneers, not liberals or conservatives.

Please help find them!
Let’s start the experiments!