There are a few photos of black people getting
arrested, but many of the photos show the same black person from
different angles. This bizarre situation should cause all of the black
people to ask themselves such questions as:
white people causing so much trouble at our
protests? Are they really trying to help us? Or are
they joining our protest in order to instigate violence
and give us a bad image?"
those white troublemakers?
troublemakers at the protests are trying to influence our future, and
we should not be intimidated into allowing them to
do this in
secrecy. We should demand that anybody who wants to influence
the world do so in an open and honest manner. We should know
who these people are, who they associate with, and whether
are being paid or blackmailed to join these protests.
As I mentioned in this
previous document, when Donald Trump was giving speeches around the
nation, the MoveOn group admitted to helping to organize protests. Is
MoveOn also helping to organize the Black Lives
Matter protests? We ought to know the answer to that question.
are fools to allow secretive, mysterious groups to stage violent
protests, block traffic, fight
the police, and influence our future. We are not
providing people with freedom of speech when
we allow secretive organizations to arrange for protests.
photo below of a woman named Ieshia Evans gave rise to some interesting
articles. For example, the news editors at AOL gave
One powerful photo from Black Lives Matters protests becomes symbol of
The Washington Post gave their article
‘Graceful in the lion’s
den’: Photo of young woman’s arrest in Baton Rouge becomes powerful
journalists are claiming that the photo shows us that black people
are so fed up with the abuse by police officers that they are willing
to confront the police, but
would say the photo really shows us that most of the black
at the protests were peaceful, and the police did not
All of the photographs of the protests show the same concept over
Specifically, the police do not harm any of the
protesters who are
peaceful and follow the laws. The only people who were
attacked by the police were those who were fighting
Some journalists describe Ieshia Evans as "brave", and
some say she is analogous to the man who stood in front of the tanks
during the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in China. However, she is
analogous to the man who stood in front of the tanks. Evans had no intention
of fighting with the police, so she had nothing to fear. By comparison,
the man who stood in front of a row of tanks that was traveling towards
him and the other protesters was fighting with a communist government.
The communist governments behave like crime
not the American police departments. Specifically, crime networks and
governments are much more likely than "normal" people to
resolve a problem with violence, displays of weapons, and threats.
The Jews are so desperate
to instigate fights, and the black people have been behaving in such a
peaceful manner, that the Jews have been forced to use photos of
peaceful black people, such as Ieshia Evans, as a way of convincing us
that black people are angry, rebellious, and uncooperative.
The Jews are doing a terrible job of instigating a race war. That photo
of Evans, for example, is not
going to instigate violence among blacks, or cause white people to fear
black people. If that
photo has any effect on people's attitudes, I suspect it will be to
encourage other black protesters to behave in a more peaceful manner. I
also suspect that the photos of the protests are likely to cause many
people to wonder why so many of the protesters
are fighting with the police are white. Why are the
black people so
behaved? Who are those white people? What is their true purpose for
joining the Black Lives Matter protests?
Imagine if the KKK arranged for protests to complain
black people, and
imagine that some black people
joined the protests, and that the protesters
most trouble were those blacks.
imagine if a group of feminists arranged for some protests to complain
about sexist men,
and that some men joined their protests, and that the protesters
who caused the most trouble were those men.
What is the difference between the BLM and
Trump was criticized many times by journalists for not condemning
David Duke and the KKK. Those same journalists are supporting the
Black Lives Matter.
What exactly is the difference between the KKK and the BLM? Why is one
group considered dangerous and disgusting, but the other is considered
admirable and beneficial?
Many black people assume that the
white people who are supporting the BLM are their friends, but I
suspect that the journalists are promoting the BLM because they are
hoping to encourage black people to join a violent, worthless
organization that wastes its time making idiotic accusations of racism
and murder. I think the Jews are hoping to find enough angry,
violent black people to instigate riots, or a civil war.
There are lots of organizations of black Americans, but the journalists
ignore all of them except for Black Lives Matter. Why do
they give the BLM so much favorable publicity?
I think the reason is because the journalists do not want to inspire
black people to discuss their issues in a peaceful and sensible manner.
journalists are willing to give favorable publicity to the BLM
because the only thing the BLM wants to do is whine,
protests, and hate. Take
a look at the description
that the BLM provides about itself. One sentence that explains why it
It was a
response to the anti-Black racism that permeates our society and also,
unfortunately, our movements.
would they complain that their own movements are permeated with racism?
Why are they so angry at black organizations? It could be because the
three women who started the BLM are feminists, at least two of whom are
lesbians, or as they describe themselves, "queers". People with sexual
disorders, regardless of their race, are often treated as outcasts. If
sexually disturbed person also has an angry personality, then instead
of dealing with their problems in a peaceful manner, they may become
Since the BLM was created by angry,
feminist lesbians, it does not have a "history". Instead, it has a
"herstory". Another sentence from their herstory page is:
Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world
where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for
journalists are trying to create the impression that the BLM is a
wonderful organization that represents black people, but it does not
represent black Americans, or Africans. It represents
only a tiny minority of the black population; namely, only a few
psychotic, angry, miserable black women with sexual disorders, and only
have convinced themselves that they are living in a world that hates
them and wants to kill them. The BLM could be described as psychotic,
and paranoid. I would say the KKK is a more
sensible organization than
I think the reason the journalists are promoting the
BLM is because they are hoping to trick black people into
the movement. This will increase the size of the protests, ruin the
image of black people, instigate fights,
and create fear of black people. To rephrase this,
the Jews are simply trying once again to trick
people into fighting
with each other, just like they did to instigate the world wars, the
War, and the Mideast war that we are still involved with.
Furthermore, I don't believe that
the BLM would have become popular if it had not been getting
support from the Jews. I think the Jews are the only
reason that it has grown so large. The Jews have been giving it
favorable publicity for years. They have been
hiding its disgusting qualities and promoting it as a wonderful
When a news anchor made a remark that implied the BLM was similar to
the KKK, she was attacked
by a lot of journalists, and thousands of secretive, mysterious people
on the Internet are now demanding that she be fired. The Jews are
protecting the BLM. Anybody who dares to
criticize the BLM is attacked as a "racist", and the Jews will try to
have them fired
from their job.
The fact that the Jews are censoring criticism of the BLM should be all
the evidence that the black people need to
realize that they should avoid the BLM. It should
be obvious that the
BLM is a trick
to instigate fights and ruin the image of black people.
understand the expression, "The
Power of Suggestion"?
Years ago I mentioned here that
the radio hosts Michael Savage and Paul Watson had a
discussion about how a war could get started accidentally
in the Ukraine. Their discussion is an example of how Jews pretend to
be saddened at the thought of killings, wars, and other problems, but
in reality, they are trying to instigate these problems.
Savage and Watson were using the "Power of Suggestion Trick"
give publicity to the concept that a war was going to start in the
Ukraine. They were trying to convince the foolish people who listen to
their radio shows that the war was inevitable, and
that we should expect it and prepare
subtle difference between a person who "informs" us of an event and a
person who is using the Power of Suggestion Trick is that the people
who are using this trick will try to suppress analyses
of the problem and possible solutions. They
do not want us to discuss or research the issue. They are trying to convince
us of something, not encourage us to learn about or discuss
reaction of Jews to the 9/11 attack is another example of this. They
pretended to show sadness for the people who jumped out of
windows of the World Trade Center towers, but in reality, they were
repeatedly trying to instigate hatred of Muslims, convince us that we
had been attacked by Muslims,
and trick us into responding with a war. They
suppressed attempts to analyze
attack and discuss possible solutions to the
On 7 July
2016, journalists began telling us that a black man was killing
police officers in Dallas. As with the 9/11 attack,
sadness over these killings, but they showed no interest in analyzing
the problem. Instead, they tried to convince us that black people had
begun a campaign of murdering white police officers. The New York Post
excited that they immediately announced that a Civil War had begun.
||The Jews were hoping that they had finally
tricked us into starting a war, but they failed again.
Many journalists criticized the New York Post
for describing the event as a Civil War. For example, the dailykos.com
article that criticized it as "wishful thinking", and the
Huffington Post wrote this
article that listed a few of the critical remarks from different
journalists, such as "Most unprofessional and
irresponsible headline of the year?" and, "the
cover is beyond absurd; it is morally perverse and factually wrong.”
Why would journalists criticize
the New York Post when they are also regularly lying to us and
instigating fights? Why would they behave in such a hypocritical manner?
One reason for the hypocrisy could be because the New York
Post was so extreme that some Jews decided to criticize them
in order to make themselves appear more
Another reason that the Jews may have attacked the
New York Post is because they were worried that the headline was such
obvious propaganda that it might cause some of the goyim to become
aware of what the Jews are doing. If we could observe a secret meeting
between the Jews, we might find some of the Jews yelling at the editors
of the New York Post, like this:
||You idiots! It is so obvious
that your headline is wishful thinking that you may
of the stupid goyim to realize that we are trying to instigate a race
journalists who criticized the New York Post complained
that the Post was "irresponsible" or "factually wrong", but it would be
more accurate to describe the New York Post
as trying to incite hatred, wars, and violence. They should be
described as "criminals", not as "unprofessional".
However, the other
journalists will not describe the New York Post as criminals because
all journalists, including those who describe themselves as
"alternative media", are behaving in a very similar manner as those of
the New York Post. They are all trying to manipulate us, instigate
cover up the crimes by Jews. They are not
journalists, and they are not simply "irresponsible". They are members
of a gigantic, destructive crime network, and they
should be arrested and removed from our world.
people should be more angry at journalists
than at the police
journalists try to convince us that black people are being attacked by
the police simply because the police hate black people, but
are not involved in the campaign to hurt black
people. By comparison, the Jews are on
a campaign to hurt black people... and white people, Chinese people,
and all other races, and the Jews have been attacking us for centuries.
The black Americans should be more disgusted with the way the media is
treating them than the way the police are treating them.
Take a critical look at the news
articles that the journalists
are publishing. The image to the right, for example, has a
at the bottom in which the editors demand that the police stop
We are fools to allow journalists to publish such
idiotic accusations. That type of remark should be regarded as slander.
Our police departments ought to arrest the
editors and journalists, not
purchase their newspapers or allow them to manipulate the gullible
I would go so far as to say that our military is justified in regarding
this crime network as a threat to the nation,
threat to the entire world,
and they should protect us from them. Our military should be defending
the world from this disgusting crime network rather than
fighting imaginary Muslim terrorists.
On the same day that the New York Post created
that Civil War headline, the New York Daily News published this
editorial about the shooting of Philando Castile. The first sentence
a police officer has fatally shot a black American — one, two, three,
four times — for the crime of being a black American.
Journalists justify publishing those type of articles by referring to
them as "editorials",
and by claiming that they are providing people with freedom
of speech. However, we have to make a distinction between
when a person
is using his "freedom of speech", and when he is trying to manipulate
incite anger, cover up a crime, or instigate
violence. We should not allow journalists
to intimidate us
into believing that their attempts to incite hatred are
"editorials". We must set higher standards for journalists, and for
people who try to influence the world.
The Jews censor people like me on the grounds that we are
spewing anti-Semitism and hatred, but it is the Jews
who promote hatred and violence. They are regularly
what our courts should describe as hate speech, lies, deception,
slander, and insults, and they are regularly censoring people who have
intelligent comments. We should not merely reprimand journalists who
behave in this manner. Those journalists are not
honest people making honest
mistakes. They are diabolical, murderous, hateful criminals who should
be removed from society.
leaders are as disgusting as our journalists
Rather than arrest the
editors and journalists for inciting violence, slandering the police,
covering up the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack, and deceiving
people into believing that suicidal Muslim terrorists are attacking us,
government officials are either silent about these crimes, or they participate
in the propaganda and manipulation. For example, Hillary Clinton said:
will call for white people, like myself, to put ourselves in the shoes
of those African-American families who fear every time their children
go somewhere, who have to have ‘The Talk,’ about, you know, how to
really protect themselves [from police], when they’re the ones who
should be expecting protection from encounters with police”
She also made the shocking accusation that our police departments
have "systemic" racism and bias:
have 18,000 police departments… [some of which need more training to]
go after systemic racism, which is a reality, and to go after systemic
remarks should be considered as slander, inciting
violence, or "hate speech", and she
should be disqualified from influential positions.
Clinton accuses the American police departments
of having "systemic racism" and "systemic bias",
and she claims that African-Americans are so fearful that
children are going to be killed by the racist police that black parents
have to teach their children
how to protect themselves from the racist police.
Where is the research
to back up her accusation that the police departments have systemic
racism? Where is her research that shows that black
parents have really had "The Talk" with their children?
can anybody consider her to be worthy of a leadership position? Her
idiotic accusations are indistinguishable from those of
the editors at CNN and the Daily News.
Imagine if the executives of IBM allowed a group of employees
to produce a newsletter that was as deceptive, dishonest, and
manipulative as the news reports of
CNN or the New York Post. For example, imagine an IBM
the IBM security department of conducting race killings.
And imagine that instead of firing the employees
who created the newsletter, the executives of
IBM behaved like Hillary Clinton; specifically, imagine IBM executives joining
the editors of the newsletter by accusing their security department of
systemic racism and systemic
What would you
think of those IBM executives? And what would you think if the
IBM purchased the newsletters rather than demanded
that the journalists and executives be fired? This is
the situation we are in right now.
The Republicans frequently boast that they support "tough" law
enforcement, so when are they going to demand that the journalists and
government officials be arrested for slander? The answer to that
question is, never. Donald Trump has promised
to change our libel laws to make it easier for people to sue
journalists, but he is standing alone. Where are the Republicans to
support that policy?
One of the reasons that conservatives will
never truly be tough on crime is that it would require that
be tough on
themselves, their friends, and
members. They want to be tough on other people's crimes,
not their own. It takes a lot of self-control for a person to be
willing to enforce the rules of society on himself and his family
members. It seems that only a minority of the population has that level
of self-control. What about you; are you willing to
follow the same rules that you expect other people
promotes the Black Lives Matter
Although Obama is considerably
better behaved than many of our other government officials, he also
promotes the Black Lives Matter group, and he recently made a remark
that should be described as deceptive or inflammatory. Specifically,
after the killing of the Dallas policemen, he said
that the police would be safer if they admit their failures.
His remark is true, but
it is deceptive when he implies that only
the police need to admit their failures. What about the black people?
Why don't any of the black people have to admit their failures?
It would have made more sense if Obama had said something to the effect
that everybody is imperfect, and that we all need to look critically at
ourselves and try to improve. It is deceptive to focus on the police
and make it appear as if they are the only people making mistakes, and
that they are the only people who are so arrogant that they are
resisting the possibility that they are imperfect.
There are thousands of encounters with the police every day in this
nation, and many of those encounters are with black people, but only a
small number of those encounters turn into an argument or fight. We are
not going to reduce the fighting by encouraging people to believe that
the police are solely responsible for all of these problems, and that
all of us are innocent victims.
A government should not promote the attitude that only the
badly behaved. Unfortunately, in a democracy, the people can vote for
whoever they please, and because humans are selfish and arrogant, the
voters have a tendency to vote for the candidates who make them feel
good with praise and promises. They want candidates who will blame all
of the nation's problems on somebody else. Voters will not tolerate
criticism, no matter how useful it is. They won't even tolerate the
accusation that they are responsible for their crummy government.
voters pretend to be helpless victims of special interests or other
political groups. They were provided with the freedom to elect anybody
they please, even people who are not on the ballot, but they
lack the intellectual and emotional abilities necessary to adequately
handle that freedom. Millions of them are planning to vote for Hillary
Clinton. Those voters are not victims of special interests; rather,
they are mentally unfit to be voters.
The voters are not
attracted to a
candidate who treats them in a manner that a military drill sergeant
treats his team, or like the manager of a business treats his
employees. They prefer the candidates who titillate them with praise
and promises, in the same manner that grandparents entertain their
grandchildren. The end result is that the voters provide themselves
with a government of con artists who pander to us, and who
encourage us to be arrogant jerks.
Our courts are as disgusting as the
Our nation puts a lot of labor and resources
into police departments, crime investigations, and courts, but crime
and corruption is rampant. Why is our legal system
so ineffective? I
would say that the two primary problems are:
1) Our legal system is based on unrealistic
philosophies, such as that
criminals can be rehabilitated with punishments.
An obvious example of how much control the Jewish crime network has
over our government is the demolition of Building 7 during the
afternoon of the 9/11 attack. It is so obvious that the Jews demolished
that building with explosives that our government ignored that building
when they published their analysis of the 9/11 attack.
2) We have allowed a Jewish crime network to get control of our courts,
government agencies, and media.
The American court system is a farce. Many of our
sheriffs, and district attorneys are criminals who should be arrested
and exiled, or executed. The legal systems in Europe are not much
better. Perhaps the best example is how they will allow Jews to arrest
people for "Holocaust denial" while ignoring corruption and pedophilia
among people in leadership positions.
The American people are allowing a network of criminal Jews to use our
legal system to help them get away with their crimes. Journalists
are regularly inciting violence and slandering people,
but our courts will never allow any of those journalists to be arrested
for their crimes. Michelle Fields filed a police report against Corey
Lewandowski over an event that security video proves she lied about,
but she did not get into trouble for it.
The Supreme Court justices in America are
normally silent about every issue other than the cases that they have
to make decisions about, but in July 2016 Ruth Ginsburg could not hold
back her criticism
of Donald Trump. With all of the corruption and bad
behavior in America, why did she choose to complain
Why didn't she complain that Hillary Clinton had slandered the police
departments? Why didn't she complain that the editors and journalists
of the New York Post should be arrested for inciting hatred?
Why didn't she suggest arresting Michelle Fields for filing a false
police report? Why didn't she complain that
the Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that the war in the
Middle East is a fraud?
Ginsberg had provided us with an intelligent analysis of Trump, then we
could say that the nation benefited from her remarks, even if we don't
agree with her opinions. However, she provided us with only a few
vague insults about Trump.
The other Supreme Court justices have remained silent about Trump
and other issues, but their silence doesn't justify allowing them to
have a top leadership position. We have to judge them by their effect
society. They are leaders of our legal system, so are they reducing
crime or corruption? Are they making our legal system easier to use or
understand? What exactly have they accomplished?
think any of our Supreme Court justices have accomplished anything that
would justify leaving them in a position of importance. I think they
all should be replaced.
We are never going to improve our
world until we become more critical of people in influential positions.
We must give job performance reviews to our
we must replace those who are not bringing improvements to the nation.
Why did so
many Jews condemn Ginsberg for her remarks?
After Ginsberg insulted Trump, other
Jews criticized her for making those remarks. Why would Jews attack her
than defend her? I suspect that it was for the same reason that they
attacked the New York Post for describing the killings of the Dallas
police officers as a "Civil War". Specifically, some Jews may have done
improve their image, but most of them may have been upset that she had
exposed her opinions, and that makes it difficult for the Jews to
use her as an impartial judge. For example, Jeff Greenwald posted this
remark on Twitter,
there's a redo of Bush v. Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself,
given her Trump comments?"
you have trouble understanding Greenfield's concern, imagine what he
say to Ginsberg in a private meeting with her. It might be something
||You idiot! By exposing
your fear of Trump, you make it difficult
for us to use you as an impartial judge when we need you to rule
Trump! You should resign so that we can replace you with a Jew who
knows how to keep her mouth shut, and who can pretend to be unbiased.
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The Jews are constantly reminding us of "The
Holocaust", and telling us to never forget
it. They want us
to spend our lives feeling sorry for Jews and hating Nazis. We are also
encouraged to hate Muslims. However, whenever a Jew
is caught committing crimes or behaving in a disgusting manner, we are
supposed to forgive and forget. We are supposed to "apply the golden
rule" and treat the Jew in the manner we would want to be treated.
few days after Ginsberg insulted Trump, she apologized. The majority of
people love apologies because humans and animals are titillated when
other creatures behave submissively towards us. The submissive displays
play an important role in the life of animals, but with modern humans,
this type of behavior is allowing criminals, incompetent leaders, and
badly behaved people to continue causing trouble for us.
have no value for modern humans. Apologies don't fix any problems, or
improve any situation. Ginsburg is still as worthless of a leader as
she was before she apologized.
Most parents teach their
children to apologize when they misbehave, but that encourages more bad
behavior. It is equivalent to teaching children that when they
misbehave, they should ask God for forgiveness, or that they should
stick a pin into a voodoo doll.
A more appropriate lesson to
teach children is that all humans are imperfect and defective, and
everybody makes mistakes, and we do so throughout our lives. The more
activities a person gets involved with, the more mistakes he will make.
Children should be told to expect to make mistakes
continuously throughout their life, and to regard each mistake as a learning
opportunity. Children should be told that the best children
are those who learn from their mistakes and become better people.
Children should also be encouraged to learn from the mistakes of other
people. Children should be told, "Don't
apologize! Learn from your mistakes and become a better person."
person will stimulate our emotions to protect children when he
apologizes, begs for pity, or behaves in a childlike manner. Our
emotions want us to take care of him and pity him. The less
self-control a person has, the more likely he will be to take
care of or vote for the person who
apologizes. Women are
especially titillated by childlike behavior.
The only way this world is going to improve is if we restrict the
voters, military, and police to people who can control their emotions
well enough to avoid being manipulated by displays of
The people who
apologize to us, or who provide us gifts, praise, and
compliments, are often trying to
us. At the other extreme, the people who criticize us
necessarily our enemy; they may be trying to help us by providing us
with their analysis of us. Their analysis may be idiotic, but
the point is, they may be trying to help
If we judge people according to how they make us feel,
could end up like Katie Piper.
Don't let her suffering go to waste. Learn
from her mistakes.
advised Ginsberg to criticize Trump?
It is important to note that Ginsburg did not
merely apologize for her remarks. She said:
reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were
advised her to make those insults about Trump? Her
remark is more evidence that she and other people in leadership
positions are not "leaders". Rather, they are members
of a crime network, and they are following orders.
We also ought to wonder why she was the only Supreme Court justice to
give an interview about her opinions. Why did the others remain silent?
should consider the possibility that the Jews asked some of the others
to do such an interview, but they refused.
Earlier in this document I mentioned that there seem to be more women
at the BLM protests today than there were at the protests last year in
Ferguson, Missouri. Since most photographers are men, and since men
have a tendency to focus on women, it is possible that this is just an
illusion, but I would expect the number of women to increase as the
crime network is destroyed. In other words, the increase in women could
be evidence that their network has reached such a level of
deterioration that it is becoming visually obvious.
The feminists like to believe that men and women are identical,
but we are different. As a group, men are more
independent and more intelligent. The differences between men and women
make it easier to push women into doing undesirable tasks.
As I wrote years ago here
in my 9/11
timeline, it was 2003 when some of the more intelligent Jews began to
realize that the Internet was exposing them, and that they were in
serious trouble. That was the year that the American Free Press
abruptly stopped selling my book. During the following years, Jews of
increasingly lower intelligence began to realize that their situation
was getting worse every year, not better. Eventually some of them came
to the conclusion that they were fighting a lost cause.
Jews began hiding in the background or secretly switching sides, and
they were replaced by younger Jews and women who didn't understand that
they were entering a battle that was hopeless. Each year more of the
intelligent Jews abandoned their network, and this has allowed
the dumber and younger Jews to have a more
influential role in the network. Eventually their network will become
dominated by fanatics, teenagers, women, and stupid men.
should have manners
British entertainer kicks a photographer who is irritating her.
It should be noted that journalists are doing
more than lying to us and trying to instigate fights. They are
also rude and annoying.
In case you never noticed,
Michelle Fields is only one of many
journalists and photographers who have irritated people with their rude
behavior to such an extent that people push them
aside, hit them, or
kick them (This
page has some photos of these attacks.)
In America, the journalists and
photographers are allowed to behave
in whatever rude manner they please. A person who attacks one of the
rude journalists is likely to get in trouble, not
the journalist. In a better society,
photographers and journalists would have to follow the same rules of
behavior as everybody else.
If any of us were to become
so annoyed by a rude person that we hit, push, or kick them, we could
get arrested for assaulting a person, but why should we?
promote the philosophy that everybody should tolerate abuse, we create
an environment in which the abusive people feel safe to behave in
whatever crude manner they please, and other people are frightened to
stand up to them. For example, after Luke Gatti
was told by the security personnel that he was not allowed into the
cafeteria because he was intoxicated, he argued with the security
officer. Since this was a cafeteria, the security officer did not have
a gun, or even a uniform, so Gatti was not afraid to argue
with him. The officer had a name tag on his shirt, and Gatti
poked it a couple of times. The officer told Gatti not to
touch him, and Gatti responded by pushing him (in
the photo below).
Everybody was afraid to stand up to Gatti, so
him to continue arguing and pushing. Eventually a man in the cafeteria
came over and tried to convince Gatti to relax, but Gatti argued with
him and pushed him. Then a woman who worked in the cafeteria tried to
convince Gatti to behave, but she had no luck, either. Another man came
over and tried to help, but he had no luck. Gatti then returned
to arguing with the security officer. Then another man came
and tried to help. It was as idiotic as this
scene from the movie, Airplane, in which one person after the next
tries to calm down a panicky passenger.
could convince Gatti to stop arguing and leave the cafeteria. The
arguing went on and on. Eventually he pushed the security officer even
harder, and that caused the female employee to grab Gatti by his arms
and push him to the floor. Gatti began fighting with her, and the
security guard and a male employee of the cafeteria came over to hold
Gatti on the floor until the police arrived.
About six months later Luke Gatti once again caused
trouble and was arrested.
I would not be surprised if he commits another crime in the future, and
then another. We like to feel sorry for people who cannot
properly, but we are not
helping them by feeling sorry for them, by tolerating their pushing,
poking, spitting, and arguing, or by
punishing them. They are suffering from some type of mental and/or
problems, and we do not yet have the technology to fix many of
their problems. Badly behaved people who cannot be helped with drugs
or diet need to be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or
exiled to the City of Misfits. Allowing them to live with us is
tormenting both them and us.
There have been some employees,
including airline pilots, who have shown up for work while intoxicated,
but business owners rarely show any fear of standing up
to intoxicated employees. Businesses are more likely
have them arrested, or order them to go home. If the intoxicated
employee refuses to follow orders, the security personnel will use physical
force, or they will call the police to use force.
societies currently have different sets of standards for
Businesses set a relatively high standard of behavior for their
employees, but we have a low standard of behavior for the public,
and we have an even lower set of standards for photographers
and journalists. I suggest that every
set a high standard for everybody,
and that the people who cannot follow the standards be restricted to
certain neighborhoods, or exiled. None of us should have to tolerate
rude or obnoxious behavior.
Another example of this problem
is the people who will not return shopping carts to designated
areas, and who instead abandon shopping carts in a parking
or who take the shopping cart home. We do not arrest people for being
irresponsible, or exile them, or restrict them to certain
neighborhoods. Instead, every society has the attitude that we must expect
citizens to be abusive, selfish, and inconsiderate, and we must all
learn to tolerate their abuse.
Germany, Finland, and other nations, the markets have reacted to this
problem by designing shopping
carts that require people to insert a coin into the cart in order to
get access to one, and if the customer wants his coin back, he has to
return the cart to its original location. This is not
sensible solution to the problem, however. The best solution is to
control reproduction so that each generation is naturally
responsible and considerate than the previous generation.
do not allow employees to leave tools, forklifts, and trash wherever
they please. Businesses fire employees
who behave in an
irresponsible, inconsiderate manner. Businesses do not follow the
philosophy that they can cure the badly behaved employees by putting
them in jail, beating them with sticks, or making them pay fines.
Businesses do not make employees leave some type of collateral, such as
a coin, when they pick up a tool. Businesses do not promote the
attitude that they can make people behave in certain manners. Instead,
businesses look for employees who have the qualities they want. We
could apply the same concept to an entire society.
The ideal situation is for people to behave in a respectable manner
because they want to,
not because they want their coin returned to them. People should be
they want to be honest, not because they are frightened of being
arrested. People should contribute to society because they want to, not
because they need money to purchase food. People who behave
properly only because of fear of being arrested, or who work only
because they need money, are no better than circus animals.
are partly responsible for the dead black people
of the people who have been killed by police officers, regardless of
race or sex, were fighting with the police, but there is no video
showing us what led up to the killing of Philando Castile. If his
girlfriend is honest about what happened, then the policeman is not
justified in killing him. However, I doubt that the policeman killed
him because of "racism". I think it is more likely that he panicked at
thought of a black man with a gun. And the reason he may
have panicked is that for many years the journalists have been
promoting the concept that black people want revenge on the
police. Once that concept is inside a person's
memory, it can have an effect on his decisions. When he encounters a
black man with a gun, those memories may trigger his emotion of fear.
the journalists have been struggling for years to convince black people
that white police officers are looking for opportunities to kill them.
can cause some black people to become frightened when they are
stopped by the police, which in turn can cause them to behave in an
unnatural manner, thereby causing the police to become suspicious of
I would say that our journalists are partly responsible
for the fighting between the police and black people because whenever a
fight occurs, the journalists encourage the black people to fear and
police, and they encourage the police to be afraid of black
The leaders of our nation should do something to improve relationships
police and black people, but the incompetent voters have given us
government officials who either allow the journalists to instigate
hatred, or, as with Hillary Clinton, assist
black people have been killed by the police?
The Huffington post published this
article with the title,
Many Black People Have Been Killed By Police This Year
The Guardian published this
article that claims that they have been counting the number of people
killed by US law enforcement agency since 2015. It is important for a
society to observe its police departments and ensure that they are
behaving properly, but the journalists are not
trying to provide
quality control of our police departments. Rather, they are taking only
one side of the issue in order to create hatred and fear of the police.
The short answer is: too many.
It would be more beneficial for a society to have the opposite
bias. For example, the Huffington Post would do more good for
us if they had published an article with the title:
Many Policemen Have Been Killed By
Criminals This Year
Guardian would also have produced a more useful article if they had
been counting the number of police officers who have been murdered and
injured by criminals.
The short answer is: too many.
It is impossible to eliminate bias, so
we cannot expect a journalist to be perfect, but we could restrict
journalism to people who show a bias for the well behaved, respectable
people who contribute to society rather than to the criminals and
mentally ill people. As I described in other documents, we can never
achieve perfection, so we should bias society in favor of the better
According to this
website, 26 police officers have been killed by guns in the
States during the first six months of 2016. There are fewer
police officers in America than there are black people,
so that is a significant amount of dead officers. The
describe how many officers were killed by black people, but it
possible that an analysis of crimes would show us that a
police officer is
more likely to be killed by a black man than a black person is likely
to be killed by the police.
In such a case, the police would be more
justified to be fearful of black people than black people could justify
being fearful of the police. This in turn would mean that instead of
black parents having "The Talk" with their children about how to avoid
being killed by police, parents should have "The Talk" with their
children who want to become police officers to warn them about the
danger of being killed by black people.
Incidentally, you might
find it interesting to note that the website that keeps track of the
death of police officers is also keeping track of the deaths from the
mysterious illnesses that police and other people suffered from as a
result of breathing the dust from the demolition of the World Trade
Center towers. In case you are unaware of this issue, the explosives
that the Jews used to destroy the World Trade Center towers created
extremely small particles of concrete, steel, mercury, glass, human
body parts, and other items, and the tiny particles caused
thousands of people to suffer lung damage, cancer, skin rashes, and
other problems. I
posted some information about this years ago, such as this article.
are not a solution to
I have complained in other articles, the American Constitution promotes
the concept that it is sensible for citizens to stage protests in
public areas, but protests cannot solve any of our social
problems. There are thousands of protests in America every year over
abortion, wages, racial issues, international relationships, and
thousands of other issues, so if protests were beneficial, then each of
those problems would become less serious each year as a result of the
protests. But what in America is improving as a result of the protests?
The reason we enjoy having protests is because we are animals.
When an animal is annoyed by something, it either runs away and hides,
or it becomes violent. Humans behave exactly the same way when we
become upset. Protests appeal to us because they give us the legal
opportunity to scream, throw objects, and hate. A protest is the human
equivalent of barking and biting.
Although we have an emotional
craving to run out into a public area to scream and throw objects, we
should not promote an activity simply because it is emotionally
satisfying to us. We need to exert some self-control and push ourselves
into behaving in a sensible manner. The people who lack the
self-control to behave properly should be regarded as crude
animal-like. They should be classified as second-class
They should be suppressed, restricted to certain neighborhoods, or
The journalists and government officials
protests by giving favorable publicity to the people who protest for
issues that they support. For example, the journalists and government
officials condemn and insult the KKK and Nazi groups when they have a
protest, but they give favorable publicity to the protests of the Black
group. Google even gave first place to a drawing
(a portion of which is to the right) that promoted the Black
would never give first place to a drawing that promoted the
KKK, the Nazis, or "Goyim Lives
Matter", and they would never promote a drawing that showed that the
Apollo moon landing was a hoax, or
that showed that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with
explosives, or that showed that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust
and the world wars (such as the cartoons below).
the "Google Doodle" contest is another example of how businesses are
manipulating our culture for their financial benefit. Google is
offering a first prize
to children of $30,000 in college scholarships, along with other gifts,
and this is causing thousands of children to waste some of their time
creating images for the contest. Although some people might respond
that children have nothing better to do with their life, I would say
that a society should take control of its culture and design it
according to what will provide us with the most pleasant life. We
should not allow businesses, Jews, religions, the NFL, or other
organizations to manipulate our social activities, holiday
celebrations, sports, leisure activities, or other social technology.
might help you to understand this concept if you imagine it happening
at a more extreme level. For example, imagine that Google was offering
a $20 million cash prize rather than a $30,000
such a case, the Google Doodle contest would have an even more
significant effect on human culture. Specifically, the inability of
most people to control their cravings for money and fame would cause a
lot more people to put a lot more time and effort into winning one of
the Google Doodle contests.
Millions of parents around the world
would spend a lot of time and money helping their children to draw
images for the contest, and some people would start businesses that
offer to train children in creating the type of drawings that the
Google judges are most likely to select as a winner. Many children
would rush home from school so their parents could drive them to the
Google Doodle Artistic Training Centers, where they would spend the
rest of the afternoon and most of the evening practicing to create
Google is not the only business that is trying to alter our culture for
their own selfish benefit. This is actually a common
practice in a free enterprise system. For some examples, a business
that produces bottles of soda might encourage us to collect bottle
a business that produces cereal might put toys into the cereal boxes; a
business that produces bubblegum might put baseball cards into packs of
bubblegum; and a business that produces toy animals might deliberately
make small amounts of certain toys in order to make them rare, thereby
fooling people into believing that those items are special and worth
more money (such as with the "Beanie Baby" toys).
businesses manipulate us in this manner, we describe it as a "clever
marketing technique" rather than as "exploitation", or as a "disgusting
distortion of our culture". However, if a government were to manipulate
us in the same manner, we would describe it as "disgusting". For
example, imagine a government including toys with lottery
tickets in order to cause children to put
pressure on their parents to purchase more lottery tickets. Would you
like to live in a society in which your children are asking you to
purchase lottery tickets so that they can collect the entire set of
toys that the government is offering? Would you want to listen to them
complain, "The other kids are
getting these toys from their parents.
Why can't I have them, also?"
Or imagine living in a nation in which the government
holds contests for children that offer $30,000 to whichever
child can eat the most hotdogs
minutes. Would you want the government encouraging children to practice
for that contest? Would you want to listen to your children asking you
to buy hundreds of packages of hot dogs so that they can practice
eating them in large quantities? Would you want your children asking
you to pay for them to go to a Hotdog Eating Training Center so that
they can be trained by professional food eaters?
I would say we are foolish for allowing businesses to
manipulate us into craving certain foods, hairstyles,
and other products, and for allowing businesses to sexually titillate
us, and for allowing businesses to manipulate our holiday celebrations,
sports, and leisure activities.
really promoting "hate speech"?
Zuckerberg and other Jews promote the concept that our government
should stop "hate speech", but Facebook refused to remove a cartoon
below), that could be described as encouraging hatred and violence.
Would Facebook allow us to post that same image
if it showed the killing of a Jew?
promoting the BLM on their
giant, outdoor computer display
The Facebook management has been promoting the
BLM in their offices for a long time, and they have allowed the
Facebook pages to promote the BLM, also. This
article claims that Facebook "played
a major role in capturing evidence
and disseminating fury in the recent glut of police-involved violence."
Why would Facebook be interested in playing a "major role"
in "disseminating fury"?
and the other Jews are hypocrites who are trying to
manipulate us. The
Jews claim to oppose "hate speech", but they regularly
promote hatred. The Jews gave
publicity to the image above in an attempt to
encourage the angry,
mentally unstable black people to fight with the police. I suspect
that the Jews
are the main
reason there is so much fighting between blacks and whites. The Jews
are also constantly trying to instigate fights between men and
women, different nations, liberals and conservatives, homosexuals and
heterosexuals, and other groups.
nitwits who cannot understand that they are being manipulated by the
Jews are dangerous.
every citizen would have the intelligence and education necessary to
realize that when Jews promote "hate speech" legislation, the Jews are
trying to give themselves the legal authority to label whoever they
dislike as "hateful" so that they can arrest their critics.
all citizens would also have the intelligence and education necessary
to avoid being tricked by these Jews into joining destructive
organizations, such as the Black Lives Matter, and getting into fights
with the police or other citizens.
citizens who are too dumb or uneducated to understand these concepts
dangerous because they can be manipulated by
Jews, salesmen, con artists, political candidates, and crime networks.
incompetent citizens should not be allowed to vote or
economy. They should be in the same category as children since they are
just as helpless and easily manipulated.
lives matter, also?
A few weeks ago, in June 2016, police in
California shot and killed a 19-year-old white teenager named Dylan
Noble because he was refusing to follow their orders to put both of his
hands where the officers could see them. The video
shows that several times he made it appear as if he
was reaching behind his back, such as to grab a gun. The
police warned him over and over to put his hands in the air and remain
where he was, but he continued to make it appear as if he was hiding a
weapon, and when he began walking towards the officers in a defiant
manner and said that he hates his life, they fired two
bullets into him, which caused him to fall to the ground, but did not
kill him. They then shot him two more times.
Although a few journalists tried to incite pity of Noble and anger
towards the police, such as in this
article, not many people cared about his death. It seems that most
Americans agree that the police were justified in shooting him. Many
people also assume that he was deliberately behaving in a rebellious
and suspicious manner because he wanted the police to kill
him. A lot of unhappy people get into a suicidal mood once in
a while, but we have such strong inhibitions about suicide that most
people never attempt it. We ought to consider that Dylan Noble
deliberately irritated the police because he was in a suicidal mood at
If Dylan Noble had been black, the Black Lives Matter group would have
undoubtedly staged another of their tantrums, and the journalists would
have repeatedly complained about the murderous, racist police who are
campaign to kill innocent, unarmed black children.
Some journalists complained that the police may have been justified in
firing one or two bullets at Dylan
Noble, but they should not have fired the final
two. However, the majority of people
have an unrealistic view of guns. Most people believe that guns are
like those they see in Hollywood movies, in which a person shoots a
gun, and the other person immediately dies. In reality, a gun will kill
a person only if the bullet hits in certain areas. Shooting a person
with a bullet is essentially throwing a small pebble at him at high
speed. There is no guarantee that a bullet will kill a person.
A police officer would be a fool to fire only one bullet at a dangerous
person. It is in the best interest of the police to fire repeatedly
until they can be certain that the person is dead. The greater the
distance between the officer and the criminal, the more shots
the officer should fire in order to ensure that he is killing
criminal. There are numerous
videos of criminals who have been shot, sometimes more than once, and
who appear to be dead, but after a while they get up and continue to
shoot at the police. Did you watch any of the three videos I
Dylan Noble's parents are filing a lawsuit
against the police. One of their complaints is that the police did not
make any attempt to use a dog or a Taser to incapacitate Dylan. This
brings up the issue of how police should deal with
people who refuse to follow their orders. This is a complex issue.
Rather than go into details, I will summarize my opinion by saying that
when we devise policies for society, we should think about what is best
for society and the future generations rather than what is best for an
I would say that from society's point of view, it is detrimental to set
laws that we allow people to violate, and it is detrimental to
police or security force that the people are allowed to ignore and
argue with. We should promote the attitude that a modern society is a
team, and that everybody must follow the rules. When we allow people to
ignore the rules, we end up in the type of situation that occurred with
Luke Gatti, who argued with the security personnel rather than
obey their orders.
Our attitude should be that everybody must follow the rules, and those
who refuse are to be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted
to the City of Misfits. People should be told that if they argue with
the police, they risk being killed. From the point of view of the
individual citizens, this is a cruel policy, but we should not care
about individuals. From the point of view of society, this policy is
analogous to cleaning the dirt out of the transmission. We are not
cruel for removing troublesome people. None of us have any
obligation to tolerate their yelling; their spraying of saliva in our
face; their poking and shoving us; or their arguments. None of us have
any obligation to pity them.
A team does not have any obligation to let any of its members argue
with the laws. We will create a more peaceful, productive team if we
tell people that if they disagree with something, they should develop
their brilliant opinions and post a document on the Internet for
everybody to read at their leisure. We should promote the attitude that
if the only way a person can get people to listen to his brilliant
ideas is by yelling, throwing objects, staging protests, and waving
weapons, then he has nothing of value to say.
People who are unhappy, using certain types of medications,
or using certain mind altering recreational drugs, can
behave in such an irrational manner that the police misinterpret their
actions as a sign that they are hiding weapons or area a threat to the
public, but the police should not risk their lives or the
safety of the public
special treatment to people who seem suicidal or impaired by drugs.
Some people claim that the police should try to help suicidal people,
but I don't think that should be part of their job.
When the police misinterpret the behavior of people who are suffering
from some type of mental or physical
impairment, some people whine that the police should recognize their
impairments and give them special treatment, but if we tell the police
to do that, they can end up in a situation that resembles this
a Pink Panther movie in which Inspector
Clouseau believes a
man who is begging for money is blind, when in reality he is the
lookout for a group of bank robbers. If we tell the police to give
special treatment to people who appear to be blind, deaf, homeless,
stupid, or crippled, then we provide criminals with another method to
outsmart the police.
Rather than tell the police to try to figure out who is mentally or
physically impaired, it would be better to separate the people with
problems. We cause trouble for ourselves when we allow mentally or
impaired people to mix among us. The solution to that type of problem
1) Set standards of behavior for a city, just like
businesses do for their employees. Businesses do not allow deaf
employees into areas where they must be able to hear, or blind people
into areas where they must be able to see, or crippled people into
areas where they must be able to walk. Businesses also expect employees
who are recovering from surgery, or who are impaired by their
medications, to stay home and recuperate rather than go to work and
cause trouble. Businesses do not allow mentally retarded people into
areas where they might cause trouble, either. We should apply the same
concept to society.
We could also apply this concept to the elderly. Rather than expect the
elderly people to live among us and suffer with the
transportation systems, staircases, and escalators that were designed
for younger people, it would be more sensible to design a city with
living areas specifically set aside for elderly people, similar to a
retirement community. That will make life more pleasant for both them
and the rest of us.
2) Keep a database that has information about
everybody's life and medical history so that we can easily identify
people and know their history. People should control their
paranoia of being observed, and their fear that other people
are going to learn the truth about them. By keeping a database of
everybody, the police would know who is in their city, and who is deaf,
recovering from surgery, or crippled. That will help reduce incorrect
assumptions that police make about us.
3) Track everybody. It would be even better if
people could get over their paranoia of being tracked. If cameras
around the city were using face recognition to track people,
then everybody could
be tracked by the city's computers. None of us would have to ask our
friends or children where they are, and the police would never have
to ask us for identification, or wonder where any of us are.
Everybody would be able
to look on their phone to see where everybody else is, and who is in
It would be possible to set up this type of software with today's
technology because in a city that controls immigration, the computers
would have a database of everybody's image, and the image of every
visitor to the city. The computers only have to match the images coming
from the cameras to the list of people in the database. If the
computers could not identify a person in one of the camera images, that
could be a sign that somebody has illegally entered the city, and the
police would be notified, or a drone could be sent out to investigate.
This would make it virtually impossible for illegal immigrants to
survive for more than a few hours in the city.
Have you ever seen the real-time display of airlines? Take a look,
and imagine the same type of display for people in your city. Instead
of showing icons for different types of airplanes, it would show icons
of adults and children, and provide their names.
If you wanted to meet a friend somewhere, instead of
calling him to see where he is, you could look on your phone and
see for yourself. If you wanted to play a game of volleyball, you would
be able to look on your phone to see which courts are free of people,
or, you could see if any of your friends were playing and join them.
That technology, incidentally, would make it extremely difficult for
people to commit crimes because it would allow the police to figure
out what everybody has been doing during their life. It should
be noted that this technology would also make it difficult for
the police and government officials to commit crimes because the
citizens would be able to track their locations, also, thereby giving
the citizens the opportunity to verify that their leaders are behaving
I'm sure a lot of people would describe such a city as a stifling
police state, but in reality it would create the incredibly
friendly and open social environment that our prehistoric ancestors
lived with. It would be miserable and frightening only to the people
who are ashamed of themselves.
You might find it interesting to consider that life in that type of
city would be similar to living in the space station, or on
a boat, or in Antarctica. The people who insist that
we must have lots of privacy and secrecy are ignoring the obvious fact
that many people are regularly living without privacy or secrecy, and
without ever complaining about it.
Of course, to be accurate, the reason astronauts, scientists in
Antarctica, and people on a boat are not whining about their lack of
privacy is because they don't have as much concern for privacy
as the ordinary people. If they were as ashamed of themselves as the
ordinary people, they never would have gotten themselves into those
We could apply the same concept to a city. If a city restricts
immigration to people who are willing to live without secrecy, then
obviously the people will allow computers to track everybody in the
city. However, if that city accepted immigrants who did not like the
lack of privacy, then those immigrants would be analogous to dirt in
the transmission. They would be constantly whining about the lack of
privacy and putting pressure on the government to change the rules.
This brings me to a point I've made many times in my documents.
Specifically, an organization is whatever the members make it to be. If
we create a city that is dominated by people who are ashamed of
themselves, dishonest, paranoid, and irresponsible, then we must expect
the people in that city to keep secrets, be deceptive about themselves,
and behave in an irresponsible, dishonest manner. If a city is
dominated by people who pee in swimming pools and believe that
everybody should carry a concealed weapon, then everybody in the city
will carry a gun and pee in the swimming pools. If a city consists of
people who are so apathetic and self-centered that they don't care if
they are lied to by journalists or government officials, then they
create a city that can be taken over by a crime network. If we restrict
a city to people who are well behaved, honest, and responsible, we will
create a city that is pleasant, free of crime, and efficient.
ill people should be separated from us
Many organizations analyze the mental and
physical qualities of their members and put them into different
classifications. For example, a business might analyze the employee's
ability to operate machinery and classify him as a Welder
or Machinist Level 2. Some organizations also classify people according
to how honest and trustworthy they seem to be. We refer to these as
Societies do not classify citizens, but we could apply this concept to
societies. In other documents I pointed out that we currently design
society for the worst behaved people, and my recommendation is to
design society for the better behaved people, and to put restrictions
on the people who are badly behaved. This requires classifying people.
No society yet is interested in trying to classify citizens, so the
people who are mentally ill are allowed to live among us. We are
expected to tolerate their awful behavior, but why should we? Why not
allow neighborhoods, and even entire cities, to be able to decide who
they want as a member, and whether they want to put restrictions on
some people, or evict them?
Businesses are allowed to evict people who
don't fit into their organization, and they are allowed to put
restrictions on their employees, and we could apply the same concept to
neighborhoods and cities. A neighborhood should not have to tolerate
people such as Luke Gatti,
or people who are living in the streets.
In addition to annoying
us with their anti-social behavior, temper tantrums, arguments,
violence, and spitting, the mentally ill people can be used as patsies
in false flag operations. Have you noticed how many of the
bizarre terrorist attacks are blamed on a single individual who has a
history of mental problems?
Another of those suspicious attacks just occurred in Nice, France on 15
July 2016. The man who is accused of driving a truck into a crowd of
people was known to be mentally disturbed and violent. The journalists
describe him as a Muslim, but his cousin claims
he was a "nasty piece of work", not a Muslim.
Even more interesting are the reports
that the police found a fake
grenade, a fake rifle, and a fake
pistol in the truck that he was driving. Why would a terrorist
carry toy weapons
on a suicidal mission to kill us? That is a sign that he was a patsy
who was given fake weapons. The reports also claim that he fired
a gun at some police officers, so that means he had a real gun in
toy guns, or, more likely, somebody else in or near his truck had a
For the journalists to describe that man as a "Muslim" is as slanderous
as describing a mentally ill American criminal as a "Protestant", or to
a mentally ill criminal in Utah as a "Mormon". However, no
society has set
any standards for journalists, so they are allowed to refer to a person
as a "Muslim" even if that person has no connection to the Muslim
Imagine if we were to treat journalists in the way they treat us. For
example, when you discuss the attack in Nice, France, you could say, "Did you know that the Jew who drove a truck
over people in France had fake weapons with him?" And when
referring to the attack in Dallas, you could say, "Did you know that the journalist who shot
and killed five policemen in Dallas was killed by a bomb that was
delivered by a robot?"
Jews and journalists are giving themselves such a bad image that
parents in the future might reprimand children with such remarks as, "Don't lie to me. Do you think you are a Jew?",
and teachers might reprimand students with, "Your
essay is as dishonest as those from the CNN journalists."
I suggest you consider the possibility that the Jews are constantly
searching for mentally ill people that they can use in their false flag
operations, and they decided to use that mentally ill man in France in
another of their attempts to instigate fear and hatred of
Muslims. I also suggest that you notice how suspicious most other
terrorist attacks are, such as the killing of the five Dallas police
on 7 July 2016. The black man who is accused of those killings also
appears to be another mentally ill man who the Jews used as a patsy to
instigate hatred and racial fights.
It is not possible to truly separate a group of people into the
"normal" and the "mentally ill" because there is no dividing line
between us. To make the situation more difficult, our mind and body
change as we grow older, and that can result in mental problems
developing in what was originally a healthy child. Furthermore,
concussions, strokes, and other environmental events can cause
significant damage to a person's mind.
Classifying people will require a lot of effort from us, and we will
need to occasionally review the classifications to ensure that they are
still appropriate, but the benefits are worth the effort. Businesses
are regularly giving performance reviews to their employees, and since
they can do it, a society can do it.
As I have mentioned several times in my documents, I'm not suggesting
that we try something that has never been tried before. I am simply
suggesting that we look through history and notice which policies have
been successful for businesses and other organizations, and we apply
those successful policies to an entire society.
We are currently treating a society as if it is something different
from a business, sports team, orchestra, or military unit, but a
"society" is just a team of people. A society can follow the same rules
that other teams follow. In such a case, the people in the city would
follow rules of behavior, just like employees do, and they
would be classified according to their behavior, thereby allowing the
city to restrict the irresponsible, antisocial, and weird people to
their own neighborhoods, restaurants, and parks.
If we also allow computers to track people in the city, then the city's
computers would be able to track those who have been classified as
potentially dangerous or mentally ill. This would make it easy for us
to restrict them to certain areas of the city because the city's
computers would be able to determine when they were trying to leave
their area. The tracking technology would also allow us to see who they
are associating with, which would make it very difficult for people to
use the mentally disturbed people in crimes. Although the areas of the
city where the mentally ill were living might have some crime, the rest
of the city would be so peaceful that women and children could wander
anywhere they pleased at any time of day or night.
Many people have difficulty being a member of a military unit,
business, or sports team because they don't like following
rules. Those people would probably dislike the type of city I am
suggesting, but why should we plan our future according to those
people? The wonderful aspects of modern society require teamwork, and
we should plan our future according to people who can form teams and
contribute to society, not according to the people who want to behave
like independent, primitive savages.
example of the benefits of eliminating secrecy
If we had access to a database that kept
details about everybody's life, it would help all of us in trying to
understand our medical problems. For example, ever since I was a child
I have had trouble swimming to the bottom of a swimming pool because
when I get near the bottom, my ears would start to hurt from the
pressure. I do not have any trouble with the decrease in pressure of
airplanes, perhaps because the airplanes climb at such a slow rate that
my ears have time to adapt to the pressure changes.
In the 1990s, a doctor told me that right ear was clogged, and that I
could use some nonprescription eardrops to clear it. I did not know my
ear was clogged because it was not causing any trouble, but I used
those eardrops anyway. Many years later another doctor told me that my
right ear was clogged. Is there something wrong with my right year?
During the past year or so I have often been hearing my heartbeat in my
right ear. I initially assumed that my right ear was clogging
and so I used those eardrops many times over a few months, but they did
not have any effect in stopping the sound.
It then occurred to me that maybe this noise was due to a
blood vessel that was on the verge of bursting, or that I
was going to have a stroke. Eventually I became so annoyed by the noise
that I decided to look on the Internet to see if anybody else was
complaining about such a noise, and I found that there are hundreds
people posting questions on Internet forums about why they hear
their heartbeat in one of their ears. Many people were telling stories
about how they went to more than one doctor, but the doctors could not
find anything wrong with them. There were also some people who went
through some type of medical treatment which turned out to be useless.
Scattered among those depressing stories, I found a message in which a
man excitedly announced that he decided to "pop his ears" by closing
his mouth, holding his nose shut, and increasing the air
pressure in his nose. That fixed the
problem for him. A few other people at that messageboard tried that
technique and reported that it helped them, also. I decided to give it
a try, and it helped me, also.
This technique does not prevent the problem from reoccurring, so it
still happens to me all the time, but whenever it becomes annoying, I
just do it again, and that relieves it for a while, or at least reduces
Apparently, at least some of us who are hearing our heartbeat have a
problem with the canal that equalizes the pressure in our
ears. Perhaps the reason I have never been able to dive
deep in a swimming pool is because that canal has trouble equalizing
the pressure at a rapid rate.
If we had a database that had information about everybody, including
information that people would describe as pointless, personal, and
"none of your business", such as whether you can dive to the bottom of
the swimming pool, what type of allergies you have, and what your
breath smells like, we would start noticing patterns, such as
the people who have
trouble going deep underwater are also likely to have certain other
problems, such as hearing their heartbeat, or having trouble in
Almost every time I swallow I hear faint noises that remind me of
bubbles. They are the same sounds that as I hear when I swallow
or move my jaws in order to equalize the pressure in my ears when I am
in an airplane that
is climbing or descending,
or when I am in a car that is climbing or descending a mountain. It is
mainly the right side of my head that makes these noises. The noises
are so faint that I don't notice them when I am eating food or in a
noisy area, but I
notice them when I am sitting alone in a quiet room.
Since I have been hearing these noises for as long as I can remember, I
was under the impression that this was normal, but maybe this is not
normal. When you
are alone in a quiet room and you swallow, do you hear bubbling or
If we were to develop the technology to analyze chemicals in the air,
and shrink that technology so small that it can fit into a cell phone,
then we could occasionally blow into the phone and let the database
keep track of the chemicals in our breath. This might help us to
understand that certain types of odors are symptoms of certain hormone
disorders, digestive disorders, tooth decay, or liver problems.
The people who are ashamed of themselves, or who are paranoid that
other people will discover the truth about them, and especially the
people who lie about themselves, are inhibiting our understanding of
the human race. We should not
encourage paranoia or secrecy. We should
tell people to accept what they are, learn about themselves, and deal
with their defects rather than pretend that they are flawless.
If athletes could be honest about their drug use, then we would have a
better understanding of how drugs are affecting their health. Right now
when an athlete suffers from a health problem, he will lie about
his use of drugs, and that can cause doctors to misinterpret his health
problems. Likewise, the people who use heroin or other drugs are likely
to lie about the drugs they use, and that can cause doctors to come up
with incorrect analyses of their problems.
The legalization of marijuana is providing us with the opportunity to
understand why at least some people want marijuana. Now that people can
admit that they smoke marijuana, a few people have posted videos in
which they describe why they want to smoke marijuana. Here
is one of the more interesting explanations that I have seen. He starts
listing his problems about four minutes into the video. It sounds like
one of his problems is Tourette syndrome, but he says the word so
quickly that I am not sure. For another example, here is
a woman who claims that marijuana has helped her to socialize
and form friendships. There are other people explaining that it helps
to relieve certain types of physical pain.
When marijuana is illegal, and when we hate, harass, or ridicule people
who want to use marijuana, we cause the people who use marijuana to
keep their use a secret. This does not help anybody. They continue to
use marijuana, but we don't get any benefit from it. By allowing people
to use marijuana, we can discover who wants to use it, and more
they want to use it.
Allowing people to freely use and talk about their drug use can also
help the marijuana users determine whether marijuana is really the best
drug for their problems. Some of them might discover that there is some
other drug that is better.
If we had a database that had details of everybody's life, we would be
able to do an analysis of the people who drink coffee, and how often
they drink it, and when they drink it, and this would help us learn
about why they are attracted to coffee. I suspect that we would
discover that most people who have cravings for coffee have some
problem with the production of energy, and that the caffeine is helping
them to overcome their disorder. If those people realized that they had
a problem, they might analyze themselves, and they might look through
the database to see who else has had the same symptoms, and what they
did to improve their situation. They might discover that there
is a better solution than coffee. Some might discover that they are low
on thyroid hormones, for example.
In our society today, we ridicule people who smoke cigarettes, and our
government wastes tax money on public service announcements to pressure
them into quitting. Many people also insult cigarette smokers as losers
who want to "look cool". If we stopped the ridicule and seriously
analyzed the people whose smoke cigarettes, I suspect that we would
find that most of them have an attraction to the effects of nicotine. I
don't think they are smoking because they are addicted to nicotine;
rather, I think they became addicted to nicotine because they like the
effect of nicotine. I suspect that an analysis of their body would show
us that they have a problem that nicotine can alleviate to a
certain extent, similar to how coffee and
tea seem to help people with energy problems.
In order to truly understand humans, we must treat humans in the same
manner that we treat animals and plants. We have to stop trying to
control people. We are not helping ourselves or other people when we
try to force people to behave in a manner that they don't want to
behave, or when we harass, ridicule, or beat them. Harassing the
cigarette smokers is not going to stop cigarette smoking. We need to
understand why they want cigarettes. If a person is
because of an inheritable genetic disorder that causes him to desire
nicotine, then no amount of education or punishments is going to help
them. The only way to stop that type of cigarette smoking is to
restrict reproduction to people who don't have any need for nicotine.
There may be millions of people in the world who occasionally hear
their heartbeat in their ear, or who complain about pain when they go
deep underwater, but ridiculing us, putting us in jail, or
beating us with a stick is not going to fix our problem. It would also
be idiotic for a government to waste money on public service
announcements that tell us to stop hearing our heartbeat, or to stop
whining about the pain and force ourselves to swim to the bottom of a
swimming pool. The only way
to truly solve this problem is to figure out if these problems are due
an inheritable genetic disorder, and if so, restrict reproduction to
people who don't suffer from these disorders.
It's easy for people to understand that there is no sense in ridiculing
a person who hears his heartbeat in his ear, but not many people seem
to be able to understand that it is just as senseless to ridicule,
punish, and torment people who have a craving for marijuana, heroin,
nicotine, caffeine, or painkillers, or who are homosexual,
uncoordinated, unable to control their temper, or unable to control
their consumption of food. We are not going to fix anybody's physical
or mental problems through ridicule, punishments, or public service
The best way to reduce our problems is to eliminate secrecy and start
studying humans in the same serious manner that we study plants and
animals. We need to figure out how many of our problems are genetic,
and of them, how many are inheritable, and we need to start restricting
reproduction. This is unpleasant, but there is no point in trying to
fight it. We cannot beat nature. The societies that refuse to control
reproduction will slowly degrade into retards.
Some people will likely respond that if we allowed drug use, society
will suffer as a result of people who operate machinery while on drugs.
However, we can put restrictions
on drug use, just like we have restrictions
on automobiles, sports, and dentistry. We
allow people to play basketball, for example, but they are not allowed
to play basketball in the hallways of a school, on public trains, or
inside restaurants. They are allowed to play basketball only in
designated areas. We could apply the same concepts to drug use. We
could allow people to use drugs, but only when they follow the rules of
how to use them, when to use them, and where to use them.
People are free to ride horses, but they must follow the rules if they
want do so. They are not allowed to ride horses inside apartment
buildings or museums, for example. We allow people to play music in
their home, but they are not allowed to play it at such a level that
the neighbors are annoyed.
We can also set rules for the medical use of marijuana. For example,
the people who want to use marijuana for medical purposes will want to
use it while they are at home, and possibly while they are at
work, and we could put a lot of restrictions on them, such as they must
use pills or liquids rather than smoking the marijuana. This will
reduce the fire hazards, and avoid annoying people with smoke and ashes.
When somebody suggests that we legalize drugs, most
people react with panic. They frighten
themselves with scenarios of dentists, pilots, and other people who are
using LSD, heroin, and other drugs. Keep in mind a concept that I have
emphasized before; namely, don't react to problems with fear or anger.
React by looking for solutions.
It is possible to legalize drugs without suffering from
dentists on LSD. We simply put restrictions on drug use, just like we
have restrictions on where people are allowed to ride horses. The
people who don't want to follow the rules should be evicted.
We do not have to tolerate their abuse or feel
sorry for them.