|Why do people make false confessions?
I think the two main reasons are:
They can't handle
the stress of interrogation.
Matthew Livers and Jessica Reid are examples of how torture
is useless for getting information
from people. Most people have a point at which they will say whatever is
necessary to stop the torture. The only difference between people is the
of torture they will tolerate. People like Matthew Livers will admit to
a murder after only 18
hours of talking, whereas
other people have to be physically tortured for
years before they will admit to a much less significant
crime. What would Matthew Livers have admitted to if he had been tortured?
He might have admitted to being the mastermind to the 9/11 attack!
2) Some false confessions
may be coming from Jews to confuse
Most news reporters make it appear as if Livers is an ordinary man,
and that the police were so abusive that he decided to admit to a murder
rather than suffer more of the brutal interrogation. However, I found this
report that describes Matthew Livers as "mentally retarded", and this
report describes him as "mildly retarded".
Our news media is disgusting!
Most news reporters imply that the police were brutal, and they try
to ignore the fact that Matthew Livers was mentally retarded, and that
he was having trouble with routine police interrogations. Don't assume
that the news reporters are stupid or incompetent. They were deliberately
ignoring his mental disorders in order to manipulate us into feeling sorry
for him and hating the police.
The Jewish crime network is often encouraging
us to hate the police and feel sorry for criminals. This is a policy
of theirs because they are criminals.
The false confessions are not equally distributed among the
crimes. Most crimes don't have any false confessions, whereas some crimes
have one, and others have hundreds.
For example, when Charles Lindbergh's son was kidnapped, more than 200
people supposedly confessed
to the kidnapping, and supposedly 500 people confessed to killing Elizabeth
Short (Hollywood's "Black Dahlia" murder).
The Jews also benefit from false
The crimes that get hundreds of
false confessions seem to be the crimes conducted by the Jews,
and this should lead us to wonder whether the false confessions are promoted
by the Jews in order to confuse the
police and public. Some of the people making false confessions may have
been lunatics who the Jews had bribed or tricked into confessing, and some
may have been crazy Jews who agreed to make false confessions simply to
help the other Jews.
Learn from the 9/11 attack and the HoloHoax. Specifically, when the
Jews commit a crime, they prepare for it by arranging for lots of people
to be witnesses to the crime, and by arranging for even more people to
be investigators of the crime. Then, as soon as the crime occurs, the phony
witnesses come forward to spread slightly inaccurate descriptions about
what happened, and later their phony investigators provide slightly inaccurate
investigations. With some crimes, they also have people come forward to
admit to the crime, thereby adding more confusion.
The Jews benefit by creating the impression that the world
is full of lunatics who frequently make false accusations. This
allows them to dismiss accusations against themselves as being due to crazy
people, or due to anti-Semitism. It might help you to understand this concept
if you consider what I wrote a few years
ago about the organizations that claim that the adults who complain
about being molested as a child are often making false accusations
as a result of false memories. By promoting
the concept that people have false memories,
a pedophile can defend himself by claiming that his victim is merely suffering
from a false memory.
|A lot of Jews are claiming to be "experts"
in psychology and human behavior, and those dishonest Jews will use their
PhD to intimidate people and defend the pedophile by doing an analysis
of the victim and coming to the conclusion that the victim is making false
accusations as a result of false memories.
Not surprisingly, there are self-proclaimed experts in the subject of
accusations, and they also have organizations, and a lot of
these people refer to themselves as Jews. Furthermore, their websites are
typical for the criminal Jews; specifically, they have names that use subliminal
techniques to fool us into thinking that they are going to tell us "all
about" the "truth". For
example, the professor/attorney/writer Alan Hirsch has this site: truthaboutfalseconfessions.com/
Another site is: all-about-forensic-psychology.com/false-confessions.html
What makes Alan Hirsch
an expert in the subject of false confessions?
How do we determine who among us
is an "expert"?
The "television Jews" are routinely promoting people that they
describe as "experts". The Jews find experts for every subject. There are
experts in terrorism, global warming, unemployment, the Holocaust, and
even Jesus Christ. They also have experts in false accusations, false
confessions, and false memories.
If a person confesses
to a crime, should he be considered guilty?
Have you ever wondered who is determining who is an "expert"? Imagine
if you were a news reporter and your boss told you to do a report about
an event that you knew nothing about, and he told you to interview an "expert"
so that the television audience could listen to an intelligent analysis
of the event. Where do you find an "expert"? How do you determine who is
an expert and who isn't?
There is no nation yet that has any
standards or qualifications for people who are described as experts, informed
sources, or whistleblowers. Even if some nation were to set standards,
and even if they had a committee to pass judgment on who meets the standards,
that would not guarantee that the experts
were really experts. The Nobel prizes are a good example. A committee of
supposedly intelligent scientists give the prizes to scientists who have
made some notable intellectual achievements, but it should be obvious that
the Jews are using these prizes to promote propaganda.
As of today, an "expert" is anybody who claims to be one. Of course,
since people follow crowds rather than individuals, nobody will regard
a person as an expert unless he can create the impression that a large
group of people regard him as an expert. This illusion is very easy for
the Jews to create because they have control of the media. By putting a
person on television and referring to him as an "expert", the television
audience is fooled into thinking that society has determined that he is
an expert, when in reality, he was selected by some disgusting, criminal
Some people support their claim of being an "expert" by pointing
out that they have had "years of experience" in a certain job, or
that they have a college education, but as I pointed out in other files,
there are lots of people who have had "years of experience" in a particular job,
and they're still no good at it. And there are lots of people with college
educations that don't know much, and who can't think properly, and who
Matthew Livers admitted to murder, but the American court system
doesn't consider a person guilty simply because he admits to a crime. Therefore,
the police were under pressure to find some physical evidence to back up
his confession. This issue reminds me of a question that I remember from
my childhood. There are different variations. One of them is something
When a person admits that he lied to you, but is now telling
you the truth, what should you think?
When a person confesses to a crime, society is in a dilemma. Do we trust
a person who is confessing to a crime? Do we assume that he is being honest
about his dishonest activities? If so, there is no sense in wasting time
or money with a trial or a further investigation. Unfortunately, people
cannot be trusted, so when a person confesses to a crime, we have to consider
the possibility that he is lying to us, and we have to wonder why
he might lie. I can think of two primary reasons that people would lie
when they confess to a crime.
a) He's telling the truth now.
b) He's lying to now, and he told the truth earlier.
Some people confess to crimes to protect other criminals
A good example is Bernie Madoff, who claims to be solely responsible
for taking and losing $50 billion. As I explained here,
one man is not capable of collecting and losing that much money, especially
when you consider that the banks must keep track of every check and credit
card transaction. Therefore, when Matthew Livers confessed to the murder,
the police should have wondered if he confessed in order to protect other
people who were also involved.
2) Mental incompetence
Apparently, Matthew Livers was not trying to protect anybody when he
confessed. Rather, he is an example of a person who is
too incompetent to handle a routine
police investigation. This brings up an interesting issue. What does society
do with people who don't have the mental abilities to function in society?
Do we make special arrangements for them? Do we treat them differently
than "normal" people? If so, this requires that we pass judgment on who
among us needs special treatment. How
do we make that decision, and who among
us will make that decision? Furthermore, what sort of categories do we
create for people? Do we have only two categories, namely, "normal", and
"substandard"? Or should we have several categories, such as a) mildly
incompetent, b) extremely helpless, c) virtually hopeless, and d) total
|Our current attitude is to feel sorry for people who have trouble functioning
in society, but I think a better policy is to stop
feeling sorry for them. We should raise standards for people.
Instead of pampering the mentally incompetent, we should sterilize them,
and if they are destructive, remove them from society. Feeling sorry for
them doesn't help them, and it doesn't help us. Imagine an extreme example.
Imagine a person who is so mentally incompetent that he cracks after
the first question.
I suppose a lot of Americans would feel sorry for the "Underdog" who
can't handle one ordinary question from the police, but we are fools
to let retards freely mingle among us. The people who can't function properly
in modern society should be sterilized and sent to their own city to live.
When we allow misfits to live with us, they have a tendency to become criminals,
parasites, or lonely, angry, depressed, miserable, antisocial freaks that
nobody wants as a friend or neighbor. We are ruining society when we become
a mixture of humans and unwanted misfits.
Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if we could transport some of our
ancestors from a million years ago to our era. Do you think
those crude savages with a smaller brain, different posture, and hair all
over their bodies would fit into our societies? They wouldn't be able to
pronounce the words in our language; they wouldn't fit properly in our
chairs; and they would have trouble controlling their emotions around food,
material items, and sexual material. Some of them might be able to get
a job in television, sales, politics, and pornography, but most of them
would likely become criminals or parasites.
Every nation has standards of behavior for its citizens, but
we all have very low standards, and
all nations are giving special privileges to people who are unusually stupid
or mentally ill on the grounds that they don't fully understand what they're
doing. For example, when a person is arrested for murder, he will get special
treatment if he can convince the court that his mind doesn't function quite
right. But why should crazy people get special privileges? Who benefits
from this policy? If a person is mentally incompetent, then get
him out of society. We shouldn't live with him.
A legal system cannot be "fair"
I was taught that the American legal system was an improvement
over the European system because our system didn't give special treatment
to the wealthy people or the people in leadership roles. However, our system
isn't "fair"; rather, it simply shifts the bias in favor of the criminals
and the mentally incompetent.
Laws must be designed for society,
not our emotions
The concept of a legal system that is "fair" is ridiculous. A court
case is not a mathematical operation that has a definite answer. A court
case is a decision; a judgment; an opinion.
Therefore, every court case is going to be biased in some manner. When
we design a court system, we shouldn't be foolish enough to think that
we can design a system that is fair to everybody. Instead, we have to decide
we want to favor.
For example, the American court system allows a person to hide his previous
criminal history and his mental disorders, and this gives special treatment
to people who are mentally ill and behaved badly. If instead we allow a
person to be completely exposed in
the trial, and if we can make a determination of his value
to society, then we favor the people who are the most useful
People who are caught smoking marijuana or using heroin are
often put in jail. By comparison, George Soros is not even considered to
be a criminal by Americans. Soros and other businessmen routinely commit
crimes of immense magnitude, but most of the population cannot understand
the significance of their crimes, and many people secretly admire them
as being "clever businessmen" rather than as "disgusting criminals".
We should judge people by their
Which is the most serious crime: a) the murder of an ordinary adult
or b) the murder of a ordinary baby?
Most people become more upset when a baby is murdered, but, from the point
of view of the human race, murdering an adult is much more serious.
Think of a farmer to understand this. If somebody were to kill a seedling,
it would be almost meaningless to the farmer, but killing a mature
and productive fruit tree would be significant.
Millions of Americans were glad when Michael Vick
was arrested and put in jail for almost 2 years
for being involved with dogfights, and I suspect that millions of Americans
would love to put people in jail for eating horses, dogs,
or cats. By comparison, professors are routinely lying to students about
the 9/11 attack, the HoloHoax, and the Apollo moon landing, but most people
don't even consider that to be worthy of complaining about. Instead, they
spend enormous amounts of money to send their children to college to be
educated by these disgusting, dishonest, criminal professors!
We should not design laws according to our emotions, and we should not design
laws to appease the sheeple. We have to design laws according to what is
best for the human race. A businessman who cheats
is much more destructive from the point of view of society than a person
who uses heroin. The businessman affects an enormous number of people,
and the future of the human race. He is ruining the economic system and
the morale of society. Likewise, a teacher who
lies to students is more destructive than a man who arranges
for dogs to fight with each other.
Most people are upset when a retarded
person is murdered, or when the police kill a criminal,
but we can't get upset simply because a person has been killed. We have
to look at who the person is and why he was killed. For example, consider
the issue of criminals who refuse to surrender and cooperate with the police.
The Internet has lots of videos that show people running from the police,
and often these people cause traffic accidents, and often the police could
have stopped the incident simply by killing the person, but instead, the
police try to catch these people alive. There is one video in which a policeman
is killed as a result of trying to talk a man into putting his gun down.
Meanwhile, he and other policemen are standing in front of this man with
guns! (I can't find the video, but I think it was from somewhere
When the police are investigating a crime, and when a person refuses
to cooperate and instead either threatens the police with a weapon, or
runs away from the police, he should be considered as admitting to guilt
and convicted of the crime. People
who refuse to cooperate should be classified as a potentially dangerous
criminal. If the police see an easy way of capturing him, they could do
so, but they should be told to be like gardeners and forest rangers. They
should be cleansing society of its troublemakers, not risking people's
lives in an attempt to catch the criminals alive.
Of course, this policy requires that we have honest
policemen, not organized crime gang members. In the world today, it would
be dangerous to tell the police to follow this policy, but if we could
get the criminals out of our government and police departments, then the
police could be told to protect society, not risk our lives by trying
to protect criminals.
This brings me to my point that it's much more important to get the
criminals out of leadership positions.
It's more important that we have honest government officials, sheriffs,
professors, and businessmen than to worry about somebody smoking marijuana
or eating a dog.
Furthermore, a person who commits a "small" crime is not necessarily
better than a person who commits a "big" crime. For example, a person who
shoplifts is not necessarily better than a person who kidnaps children
for sale as sex slaves. Rather, the shoplifter may be an idiot who simply
couldn't think of any other crime to commit, and none of the crime networks
may have wanted him as a member. From the point of view of society, an
idiot who is a criminal is not better than an "ordinary" criminal. Actually,
the stupid criminal could be described as having two problems; namely,
stupidity, and criminal behavior. We don't need more idiots, and we don't
need more criminals.
Our legal system focuses on whether a person has committed
a crime, but I think a more useful legal system would be less
concerned about whether a crime has been committed and more concerned about
the effect the person has on society. The primary purpose of a trial should
be to determine whether we want the person living
with us. We should be looking at the person and his value to
society. We shouldn't be worried about the seriousness of his crimes, or
whether he actually committed the crime. With this type of a legal system,
we can have people arrested even if they never
violated any law. This allows us to remove people simply
because we don't want them living with us, even if they have technically
If you wonder why I propose a legal system that allows "honest" people
to be arrested, I've given some examples of how businessmen are abusing
us all the time, but they are technically obeying the law so we can't do
anything about it. For example, about 100 years ago, some businessmen were
putting addictive drugs into medicines. This was technically legal at the
time. People responded by passing laws against it. The businessmen didn't
become better businessmen, however. Rather, they simply switched to deceiving
people in some other manner. This situation is still occurring. For example,
recently the credit card companies were told to stop abusing people with
interest rates, and so now they're doing other things to raise money.
|What we are doing with businessmen could be described as "playing
cat and mouse games". These businessmen are technically obeying the
law, but I think we should design a legal system that allows us to arrest
Our court system and police should have a similar attitude as gardeners.
We shouldn't have to wait for a person to violate a "serious" law in order
to remove him from society. A society should be able to analyze everybody
any time and pass judgment on whether we want them living with
us. We shouldn't tolerate people who are abusive, even if they are obeying
the law. Nobody should have the right to live with us. It should be a privilege.
With this attitude, we can remove people simply because we don't want them
living with us.
We shouldn't have to be constantly watching businessmen and
creating new laws to stop them from abusing us.
We don't have to tolerate abuse from anybody! People in leadership positions
should be providing us with guidance and impressing us with their ability
to improve society, and if they cannot do their job properly, then they
should be removed from leadership positions, and if they are abusing
us, they should be removed from society.
Don't be intimidated into thinking that we owe abusive people the right
to live with us.
It's extremely dangerous
to allow honest
people to be arrested!
My concept of a legal system that allows honest people to be
arrested and evicted from society simply because we don't like them could
be incredibly useful, but it can also be incredibly
dangerous. It all depends upon the quality
of people in our society. As I described in other documents,
such as this,
an organization can only be as good as its members. If we were to implement
this type of legal system in America right now,
it would destroy this nation. America is dominated by criminals, so it
would be a disaster to give these freaks the authority to arrest honest
people and pass judgment on whether they belong in society.
We can't achieve perfection;
but we can improve
How is it possible to create a society in which the government has this
type of authority? It's very important that you understand that if
you want a better society, then you must have better people.
As I've mentioned before, if you have trouble with these concepts, consider
it on a smaller scale. Consider how this concept applies to an orchestra,
or a sports team, or a business. For example, the music that is
produced by an orchestra depends upon the musicians. If you
want them to produce better music, then you need to give them better instruments
and better training, and if they already have proper instruments and training,
then the only way to improve the music is to replace the musicians
with more talented musicians.
Likewise, if you own a small engineering company, the products you develop
depend upon the people in your business. If you want them to produce better
products, then you need to provide them with better tools and training.
Once you've provided them with adequate tools and training, the only way
to improve your company is to start replacing
the people with more talented engineers.
Now apply this concept to the level of a city, or a nation. If you
want a nation to become better, then the people have to behave
in a better manner. We can improve their behavior with education
and training, but after we do that, the only way to improve society is
to start removing the people who are
It's possible that there are not enough
humans with the ability to live in the type of society that I'm suggesting.
The majority of people may simply be too much like animals. The human mind
may need to evolve for a few more million
years before we're capable of setting up a society in which people can
trust one another.
Even though we are not likely to be able to create a truly
peaceful, honest world, I think we can bring significant
improvements to the world. At the moment, no nation has any
sensible standards at all, and nations everywhere are dominated by crime
networks. We cannot create a "perfect" world, but we can certainly improve
upon the ridiculous situation that we have right now. We can certainly
find professors who are more honest, and government officials who are more
So, don't worry about achieving perfection. If we can bring improvements,
we are doing a lot. And we can certainly improve upon what we have right
Why does the media focus on David
The issue of David Kofoed fabricating evidence in order
to convict Livers and Sanford is another example of how our legal system
- and our attitudes towards life - are crude
and need to be updated. We don't want
policemen fabricating evidence or altering it, but it's important to note
that Kofoed is accused of planting evidence after
Matthew Livers had confessed to the murder. If Livers had been tortured
into confessing, then Kofoed could be accused of setting up a possibly
innocent man, but there is no evidence that Livers was tortured. Therefore,
Kofoed was not planting evidence to set up an innocent man. Rather, he
was helping the police to convict a man who voluntarily confessed to a
Criminals are terrified of high
standards of behavior
I would say this type of crime is equivalent to a person who doesn't
come to a complete stop at a stop sign in the middle of the desert during
the day when he can clearly see that nobody is anywhere near the intersection.
Although technically the person is required to come to a complete stop,
what difference does it make if he does not?
Furthermore, compare Kofoed's "crime" to some of the other crimes that are
occurring. For example, look at all of the people in our media, school
system, and legal system who are deliberately lying to us about the 9/11
attack, the Holocaust, the World Wars, the Apollo moon landing, the attack
on the USS Liberty, and possibly a lot of other crimes that we don't even
know about yet. And consider the crimes that are occurring in our banking
and financial system.
I haven't investigated the accusations of police fabricating evidence,
but the few cases that I am aware of seem to be situations in which the
police seem frustrated with our legal system and are trying to get rid
of people who are truly a menace to society. My conclusion is that the
policemen that the Jews complain about are the policemen that the Jews
are afraid of. By comparison, the policemen who are working with the criminal
Jewish network never get in trouble,
and the media never exposes or complains about them.
For example, consider the policemen who arrested Christopher Bollyn.
In addition to committing a crime by arresting him, they also illegally
destroyed the video from their dashboard camera so that nobody could see
what actually happened. Those policemen committed a much more serious crime
than David Kofoed. However, the television show 20/20 will never investigate
the dishonest arrest of Christopher Bollyn, and none of the news reporters
are going to accuse any of the policemen of committing a crime, and none
of the reporters will expose the trial as a fraud.
When your house is burning down, and you find the fire department is
focusing on removing a dirty spot on your carpet, you would wonder why
they have such absurd priorities. Likewise, we ought to wonder why the
Jews are focusing on David Kofoed when we have so many incredible crimes
going on around us.
I don't know David Kofoed, and so it's possible that he's actually working
with the criminal Jews, but my point is that we should wonder why the media
is focusing on him, and we should also take a serious look at Judge Randall
Rehmeier and wonder why he was so eager to convict Kofoed. Why doesn't
Judge Rehmeier show any eagerness in convicting school teachers and news
reporters who lie about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the Apollo
moon landing? Why doesn't he show any interest in convicting people involved
with the sex slave industry or the raping of orphan boys?
It's possible that one reason the Jews decided to give the
arrest of Matthew Livers so much publicity is because they noticed a lot
of people making remarks that even if Livers and his cousin are innocent of the
murders, they are unwanted retards
who should be removed from society.
This would explain why the Jews have been trying to ignore his retardation,
bring him pity, encourage the hatred of the police, and put David Kofoed
in jail. I think this attitude of cleaning society
of unwanted people frightens both criminals
and the people who are irritating, parasitic, and unwanted.
Imagine if we had a society in which we could remove people
simply because we didn't want them living with us. Imagine a society in
which nobody is allowed to keep their history a secret. Consider how many
people might be removed from society, and how many of them would be government
officials, lawyers, professors, and policemen. And consider that if we
were allowed to investigate the lives of people such as Oksana Grigorieva,
we might come to the conclusion that she's a human version of a flea,
and we want her removed, also.
It's important to note that the criminals, parasites, religious fanatics,
and obnoxious freaks want to live with those of us who are responsible,
honest, nicely behaved, and contribute to society. However, there is no
rule of the universe that requires we suffer their abuse, or that we do
them any favors at all. We shouldn't put up with misfits, not even the
religious fanatics. There is no rule that says we must tolerate them traveling
through our neighborhoods to push their religion, and we don't have to
listen to their idiotic complaints about evolution or stem cell research.
The Amish, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and other religious fanatics
should have separate cities. We are fools to allow them to live among us;
it's like mixing oil with water. If it turns out that they have trouble
taking care of themselves, that is their problem.
We have to stop feeling sorry for losers.
Businessmen should inspire
us, not exploit
Likewise, we don't have to tolerate people who want toilet humor and
constant sexual titillation. They can live among themselves, also. The
people who are destructive, parasitic, and unwanted are constantly pushing
the attitude that we should feel sorry for "Underdogs" and the "disadvantaged",
and that we should give criminals a second chance, and then a third chance,
and then a fourth chance. They are also constantly promoting the concept
of inheritances, nepotism, and monarchies. They don't
want to earn their position in life. They also tell us that
we should not lose our temper when
people abuse us; that we should treat criminals in the manner that we want
to be treated. They also promote the concept that we should respect people
simply because of their job title, or because they were born into a certain
family, or because they have a college diploma, or a Nobel Prize. We are
fools to allow these parasites and criminals to impose their disgusting
philosophy on us.
We have to stop feeling sorry for people who abuse us. We have to stop
supporting the attitude that we can cure a badly behaved person by punishing
him briefly. We should be able to remove people from society simply because
don't like them. The people who are dangerous should be exiled
to special cities, or executed, and the people who are not dangerous but
are simply unwanted need to be sent
to their own city, also.
This concept is especially important in regards to businessmen.
They are frequently behaving in disgusting, abusive
manners that are technically legal. For a trivial example, in September
2010, Anheuser Bush gave away half a million free samples
of Budweiser beer. Providing samples of an item makes sense when a business
is offering a new product that people have a tendency to resist, but the
people who drink beer already know about Budweiser. This was not an attempt
to inform people about a new product. This is just another attempt to manipulate
people. This particular example seems trivial, but my point is that these
businessmen are spending their time
- and being paid very highly for it - trying to figure out ways to manipulate
us, they are not spending
their time looking for ways to improve society.
The difference might be subtle, but it's very significant.
Why do you
bother to live?
People in leadership positions should be looking for ways to improve
society; they should not be looking for ways to manipulate
us as if we are circus animals or pawns in a chess game. We
need citizens who can differentiate between a leader
who provides guidance, and a con
artist who deceives and manipulates.
Most of the people in leadership positions today are not
leaders. They are abusive, selfish, manipulative criminals and con artists.
They are manipulating children into desiring certain products, and they
are creating sexually stimulating advertisements for children, and they
have convinced adult women that they need diamonds, or breast implants,
or Botox injections. Businesses should not manipulate
us. As I described in lots of other articles,
businesses should compete with one another in order to inspire
everybody to look for ways of improving society. Our jobs should benefit
society, not make a small number of people very wealthy, or to manipulate
customers. We need to shift the emphasis from sales to improving
society. We should not be pawns in an economic game between aggressive,
selfish, manipulative, deceptive businessmen. We have allowed a network
of freaks to get control of our society. Our businessmen are savages,
not advanced humans.
A lot of people are disgusted with the behavior of businessmen, and
their reaction is to devise new laws to control the abuse. But that policy
work. We have to stop playing this idiotic "cat and mouse game" with
businessmen. We should stop thinking of them as "clever" and start
realizing that they are disgusting, abusive freaks who are interfering
with the purpose of an economic system.
Do we exist simply to provide criminals, parasites, and other
freaks with a nicer life than they would have if they were living by themselves?
Do we exist simply to provide Oksana Grigorieva with material items or
fame? Do we exist simply to provide Jews with a better society than
they can provide for themselves? Do we live merely to provide George Soros
or Bill Gates with mansions? What do
we owe either of those men? Do we owe any human a mansion? Do we owe any
human a yacht? The Apple company recently
the world's most expensive cell phone; it has diamonds
all around it. Why do we make these products? How does anybody benefit
from this? Why shouldn't we treat everybody in a more equal manner? Why
not make everybody earn their position? And why not demand that everybody
behave in an honest and respectable manner, and if they can't, then get
them out of society!
We don't owe anybody anything. We
can live with who we want to live with, and we can work with who we want
to work with. Don't let parasitic or abusive people intimidate you or pressure
you into feeling that you owe them something. You don't owe them anything.
We have parasites, criminals, and freaks trying to live among us because
they like what we offer. They like the way we treat them; they like our
cities; they like our food; etc. They want what we have, but we don't owe
them anything. We don't have to live with them or put up with their abuse.
And we don't need any evidence that they have committed a crime. We can
simply tell them, "Get out of our society. We don't want you."
Furthermore, don't feel as if you need to give special treatment to
somebody's children. We should eliminate the concepts of monarchies, inheritances,
and nepotism. Allowing a child to inherit his position in life is equivalent
to allowing him to kidnap a woman and use her as a wife. Let every man
earn his wife and his position in life. Don't allow people to intimidate
you into thinking that they deserve special treatment because their parents