After a few women found the courage to expose the sexual harassment they had to tolerate from Harvey Weinstein, other women began finding the courage to complain about the abuse that they experienced. By September 2018, there were millions of messages on the Internet with the phrase "me too", and tens of thousands of women, and some men, had posted messages about their experiences with sexual harassment.

However, not all of the people in Hollywood are truly "victims", at least not according to the people who are claiming that the Hollywood executives prefer to find willing participants.

Prostitution has been a popular activity for thousands of years, so I would not be surprised if there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who would gladly have sex with Hollywood directors if they could become one of the wealthy and famous "elite", such as Lady Gaga in the photo below.

If we could become a celebrity from only a few minutes of sexual services, that would be a much easier and faster way to get a high-paying job compared to the alternatives.

To make the job of a celebrity more desirable, they get to do more than meet the world's leaders; they become one of the world leaders. The images below show some examples of celebrities who have been chosen to give speeches about political issues, or chosen to give speeches to university students on their graduation day.

Some people are claiming that providing sex services to the Hollywood executives will only get a person into the entry level jobs of Hollywood. In order to become a famous celebrity and make millions of dollars a year, an actor must be willing to "take it to the next level". Specifically, he must make a "sacrifice" by doing something such as selecting a friend or family member to be murdered. In my previous document, I pointed out that those accusations have caused me to wonder if Lady Gaga chose her friend to be murdered.

It might seem absurd to believe that a few Hollywood Jews can demand that celebrities choose a friend or family member to be murdered, and that those Jews can also arrange for the person to be murdered, and that those Jews can also ensure that the police and journalists will cover up the murder. However, the Jews have gotten away with blowing up the World Trade Center towers, thereby murdering thousands of people. They also got away with tricking the American military into starting a war that is still going on. And they have gotten away with dropping bombs, including napalm, on the sailors of the USS Liberty. They also tricked the world into two world wars, and they are still getting away with demanding Holocaust payments from Germany.

Considering how much abuse the Jews have been – and still are – getting away with, is it really so difficult to believe that the Hollywood Jews are also getting away with a few murders?

Also, consider that it is much easier for the Jews to abuse the Hollywood celebrities than it is to abuse the military because the people who want to become celebrities have such intense cravings for wealth and fame that they are willing to get on their hands and knees and become blackmailed puppets who remain quiet about the abuse.

The Hollywood celebrities do not describe their treatment as "abusive". Rather, they describe it as "selling my soul to the devil". They are so desperate for wealth and fame that they do not consider themselves as victims of abusive, murderous, treacherous, Hollywood Jews. Rather, they believe that they are one of the fortunate people who has been provided with a wonderful opportunity.

While it might seem shocking that the Hollywood Jews are doing such things in order to control the entertainment business, to make the situation even more revolting, some people are claiming that the Jews are sometimes demanding that the sacrifices be made more than one time.

If these accusations are accurate, then we ought to wonder about all of the mysterious deaths and suicides in Hollywood. In a previous document here I pointed out that a Hollywood actor, Dirk Benedict, said that there are hundreds of murders in Hollywood. He didn't provide details, but perhaps he was referring to the "sacrifices" that the Hollywood celebrities have to make.

If some people in Hollywood have to occasionally pick a friend or family member to be murdered, it would be very risky to become one of their friends or spouses. Their own children would be at risk, also. These accusations make me wonder about such issues as:

• Rick Genest

Did Rick Genest, one of Lady Gaga's friends, really commit suicide at age 32? Or did Gaga choose him to be murdered for her routine sacrifice to the Hollywood Jews? Genest had surgery to remove brain cancer, which required removing half of his brain, so maybe she justified his murder by telling herself that she is putting him out of his misery.

• Jim Carrey

Carrey's girlfriend committed suicide. Or was she one of the sacrifices that he had to make? Or was he showing signs of rebellion, and the Hollywood Jews killed her in order to intimidate him and other entertainers?

• Craig Sawyer

Sawyer, a former Navy SEAL, has had a couple of minor acting jobs in Hollywood, and he has been a consultant and technical adviser to Hollywood. Although he is at the low levels in Hollywood rather than in the celebrity category, we ought to wonder if he had to make a sacrifice to be accepted by the Hollywood Jews. If so, does he have to occasionally make another sacrifice to "renew his contract" with them?

Craig Sawyer wrote that his daughter "was abducted at knifepoint and sexually assaulted for 5 hours". Was that truly a random assault? Or did he make a deal that, instead of picking somebody to be murdered, he would allow his daughter to be sexually abused?

About a month after his daughter was abused he started the organization Veterans For Child Rescue, which searches for pedophiles. It appears that he became upset that the police and FBI do nothing to stop pedophiles, so he started an organization to stop the pedophiles.

However, some people suspect that Sawyer is another Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. For example, in this video, Daniel Lee almost states as a fact that Craig Sawyer is trying to protect a pedophile network.

If the accusation is true that Sawyer is helping a pedophile network, then we should wonder what he did to be accepted by them. Why would a pedophile network accept a Navy SEAL? Sawyer would have to do something very disgusting and illegal in order for pedophiles to trust him. Did he take a trip to Thailand to have sex with children? Or did he allow that pedophile network to abuse his daughter?

If you find it difficult to believe that a father would allow his daughter to be raped, look through the police reports of parents who have been arrested for similar crimes, such as this mother who sold her two daughters for $30,000. And did you listen to Jenny Guskin, who says that her parents adopted her so that they could make money by offering her to a pedophile network?

And if you have a difficult time believing that the elite and respected members of the military could be involved with pedophilia, look through the arrests of military officers, such as Major General James Grazioplene, who was arrested for routinely raping a girl starting from when she was three years old. And John Heldstab, a two-star Army general, was arrested for regularly raping one of his male relatives, starting from when the boy was eight years old.

People all around the world are cheating, raping, murdering, kidnapping, and burglarizing one another, and as the human race continues to degrade genetically, the psychotic and destructive behavior is going to increase. So be prepared for the future generations to behave in an even more bizarre and disgusting manner.

Furthermore, the people who commit these crimes are easy to control through blackmail, so we should expect crime networks to help more of them become government officials, military leaders, journalists, sheriffs, judges, college professors, business executives, and religious leaders.

• Jesse Ventura

Ventura was a Navy SEAL, and after he got out of the military he got some acting and producing jobs in Hollywood, and he eventually became the governor of Minnesota. Did he have to make any sacrifices to be accepted into Hollywood, or to become the governor of Minnesota? Have there been any suspicious deaths, rapes, or suicides among Jesse Ventura's friends or family members?

During 2002 he was governor of Minnesota, and he was posting messages on an Internet message board. I cannot remember much about it, but I remember posting messages that the World Trade Center towers were blown up with explosives.

In those days, there were not as many people posting messages, so my messages did not get lost among thousands of other messages. However, none of the people showed an interest in what I was saying. My impression was that Ventura, and most of the other people who were posting messages, were trying to cover up the attack.

If it is true that Craig Sawyer or Jesse Ventura have chosen to work with an international pedophile or Jewish crime network, then they are examples of why the world has so many problems. The Navy SEALs are just one organization that believes that they are a group of honest, responsible people who work as a team, and who are dedicated to one another and the nation. In reality, every organization is just a group of intelligent monkeys, and all members of the team need to be aware of the possibility that one of those monkeys might turn on the team if offered an appropriate bribe.

To make the situation even worse, some of us monkeys are willing to take it to the next level and do some truly shocking things in return for getting whatever it is we crave.

What would it take to bribe you to turn on your friends, nation, or family? Would you do it for $40 million? Would you do it to get a job as a tenured college professor? Would you do it for a role in a Hollywood movie?

There are people who are suffering from some type of mental anguish due to their defective brain and/or body, but very few of them are willing to consider the possibility that their misery is coming from within them. Most people want to believe that they are unhappy because of something outside of them, and that they can end their misery by acquiring more money, fame, sex, babies, or trophies.

The unhappy people who are looking for relief from their misery are the easiest for the crime networks to bribe because the crime network can bribe them simply by offering them whatever they assume is the cure to their misery, such as money, fame, sex with children, or top-level government positions.

The significance of this issue is that when we allow unhappy people into our team, we have to watch them carefully because they are the most likely to turn on or abandon the other members in an attempt to find relief from their misery. The reason that they are such unstable team members is because they will be the most susceptible to the bribes of a crime network; the promises of happiness from religious cults; and the relief offered by heroin and other drugs.

Virtually all government officials show signs of being puppets of Israel. Even the Pope and Donald Trump have traveled to Jerusalem to wear a yarmulke and touch the Wailing Wall.

Why don't the world leaders show the same submissiveness to all of the other religions? And why don't they also visit a natural history Museum, or a DNA research laboratory, and show some submissiveness to the people who believe in evolution? And why don't they visit an engineering or software company and show submission to the people who are developing technology? Why are the world's leaders submissive only to Jews?

Perhaps the world's leaders are submissive to Israel because the Jewish crime network is so large, and has so much control over the police and FBI, that they can intimidate almost anybody into obeying them. Did you listen to Jenny describe how a crime network would demand that men, including President Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders, choose a child to rape? In order for a crime network to get away with that type of operation, they would need a tremendous influence over the FBI, government, military, courts, and police departments.

Perhaps Trump, our military leaders, and other people in influential positions are cautious about fighting this crime network because they worry about retaliation by the criminals. If that is the case, then Trump should ask for help from the public.

However, instead of asking for help, Trump is submissive to the Jews. For example, the Trump administration appointed Kenneth Marcus to the Education Department, and in September 2018 Marcus reopened a case against Rutgers University in which some Jews complained that the University was promoting anti-Semitism.

Why does the Trump administration want to help Jews file lawsuits against us? Why doesn't Trump bring people into the government who will file lawsuits against the Google executives, university professors, journalists, ADL, and other people who accuse us of being Nazis, Fascists, white supremacists, racists, bigots, sexists, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites?

If I was president, I would put a person in control of the Education Department who would supervise the editing of school books to remove the propaganda and lies about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and other events. The school books should also be edited to make students aware of the concept that nobody has the complete details of historical events, and that further historical research will add more details and correct mistakes, thereby causing future school books to have a slightly different and more accurate view of historical events.

That type of schoolbook would help the students realize that they are not actually "learning history"; rather, they are learning what the authors of the school books assume is history at the time they wrote the books.

If I were President, I would also tell the Europeans to eliminate their nonsensical laws that prohibit "Holocaust denial," and I would tell the Germans to stop the self-flagellation, and start doing some research into the world wars.

What is the difference between Muslims and Christians who torture themselves to show their submission to their particular god, and the Germans who torment themselves to show their submission to Jews?

I advise the Germans to stop this idiotic behavior.

Incidentally, in a previous document I pointed out that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity appear to have evolved from the same religion. However, Christianity may have more in common with Islam than it does with Judaism. For example, both Muslims and Christians promote self-flagellation. Instead of referring to Christians as "Judeo-Christians", it would make more sense to say "Islamo-Christians".

When President Trump was a candidate, he promised to make it easier for us to sue journalists, but instead he puts a Jew into the education department, and he allows that Jew to reopen a lawsuit that is so biased and abusive that it was terminated during the Obama administration.

Why is Trump allowing Jews to criticize some of us and our organizations as anti-Semites, "hate groups", white supremacists, and Nazis? Why doesn't Trump make it easy for us to sue those Jews for slander and spreading hatred?

Why is Trump also allowing journalists and Hollywood celebrities to regularly refer to him as a Nazi, a fascist, and other insults? Furthermore, the journalists regularly try to give him a bad image in a less blatant manner by describing him with such adjectives as enraged, infuriated, and outraged.

It is certainly beneficial that Trump occasionally responds to the insults by referring to the articles as "fake news", but fixing this problem requires more than talking and tweeting. We need to raise standards for journalists, and be able to fire or arrest the journalists who are not doing their jobs properly. We have to stop being passive sheep. The journalists have been abusing us for decades. We need to give ourselves a government that will stand up to their abuse and put an end to it. We need to take action against the disgusting journalists.

And why does Trump allow Jews to encourage the punching of Nazis? Would he allow the Jews to promote a document about How To Punch a Trump Family Member? The Google executives, Jewish groups, and liberals who encourage the hatred of and violence towards the Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, racists, sexists, and anti-Semites should be regarded as trying to incite hatred of whoever they dislike.

The liberals and Jews encourage the punching of Nazis, so imagine if we were to encourage the punching of Jews, liberals, or brown supremacists. Or how about if we justify the punching of feminists by referring to them as "female supremacists", or female misandrists, or female sexists?

Actually, it might help people realize how abusive the Jews and liberals are if we were to modify the documents and cartoons that they have created to incite hatred of us to incite hatred of them. We could change the word "Nazi" to "Jew" or "Liberal", and the phrase "white supremacist" to "brown supremacist", "liberal Supremacist", or "Jewish Supremacist". We could change anti-Semite to anti-Goyim or anti-human.

For example, the image to the right is a portion (here is the full size) of one of their cartoons (the original is here) that I modified.

We want the members of an organization to look critically at themselves, each other, and their organization, and to discuss their disagreements and ideas, but calling people "Nazis", "anti-Semites", or "white supremacists" is not discussing issues or providing constructive criticism. It is instigating anger and hatred.

This behavior should be considered as disruptive, disgusting, unacceptable, and as illegal as other types of slander. However, rather than sue the people who make slanderous accusations, we should arrest them and either put restrictions on them, or evict them.

Suing people for money cannot solve our social problems; it merely allows lawyers and other people to profit from problems. A more sensible reaction to the people who cause trouble is to suppress or evict them.

Why is Trump allowing Jews to slander us as Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers? Why does he bring Jews into the government who want to intimidate us with such insults?

Some Trump supporters insist that Trump is "keeping his enemies close", and that he is "playing 3D chess". This may be true, but after a certain number of years of promoting Israel, allowing the Jews to abuse us, and helping the Jews to cover up their crimes, we should consider the possibility that Trump is following the orders of a Jewish crime network.

In September 2018, Daniel Lee created this video to respond to the people who are complaining to him that Trump is not stopping the pedophiles. One of Lee's responses is that perhaps Trump is not arresting any high-level pedophiles, such as Hillary Clinton, because it would cause millions of people to become distraught and start riots. Are any adults dumb enough to fall for that trick?

If Clinton and other government officials were arrested for pedophilia but without any evidence of committing such a crime, then of course people would be upset, but if the Trump administration has evidence, the public is not going to defend the officials, or become angry with the Trump administration. Rather, most people, including the most devoted Clinton supporters, would be more likely to ask such questions as:

• How was it possible for top government officials to get away with pedophilia and murder for decades?
• Why didn't the FBI, police departments, CIA, or military do something about that problem?
• Why were the journalists ridiculing pizzagate rather than investigating and exposing the pedophile network?
• What have the people in our law enforcement agencies been doing with our tax money during the past few decades?

To rephrase this, if the Trump administration shows evidence that top government officials are involved with pedophilia and murder, the public would become even more disgusted with the government, police, FBI, and journalists, and they would wonder who has been supplying the government officials with children.

Trump obviously knows, or has been told, that some of us are becoming upset that he is not arresting any high level government officials or journalists because in September 2018 he responded to us by tweeting this remark:

It is important to note that Trump made that remark on Twitter, not in one of his speeches to the world or the nation. This implies that he made the remark only for the small group of people who use the Internet for information, not for the public. Furthermore, he tells us not to worry, which implies that he is responding to the small group of people who are concerned that he is not destroying the crime network.

You might assume that when Donald Trump sends out a tweet, he is announcing something to the world, but his tweet can be visualized as whispering to the people who read his tweets. If the journalists repeat his tweet on television, newspapers, and magazines, then the public will hear of those tweets, but the journalists ignore some of his tweets.

Trump justifies the lack of progress by saying that the swamp is fighting back, but if the criminals are more difficult to defeat than he expected, why doesn't he ask us to get involved and help him? Why does he want us to be passive, contented sheep who do nothing, and who wait patiently and silently for him to win this battle? And how many more years should we wait for him to win this battle? At what point should we come to the conclusion that he is losing the battle?

Furthermore, he says that "we will win", but who is he referring to by "we"? Is he referring to people like me? Or is he referring to the group of billionaires and Jews that he associates with?

If you were to order a product from a business, and two years later you were still waiting for delivery, you would not be pacified with a tweet that told you "Don't worry, we will win!". You would want a more detailed progress report so that you could determine whether you want to cancel the order.

Why doesn't Trump give the nation a progress report about draining the swamp? Why does he want this battle conducted in secrecy?

Unfortunately, the voters don't demand progress reports from their government officials, and the voters don't give them job performance reviews, and there are no consequences when the officials fail to deliver on their promises.

After the 9/11 attack occurred, hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on the Internet were blaming the attack on George Bush, Dick Cheney, David Rockefeller, the Vatican, and the bankers. The few people who accused Jews or Israel of involvement were criticized as Nazis or anti-Semites.

As evidence accumulated to show that Israel was involved with the 9/11 attack, the horde of mysterious people on the Internet began claiming that Israel was forced into participating by the Bush family, the bankers, or the Vatican.

When Obama became president, the horde of mysterious people on the Internet began blaming Obama for many of the world's problems.

It is now 2018, and millions of people around the world realize that there is widespread corruption and pedophilia in our governments, media, FBI, militaries, and police departments. The mysterious people on the Internet can no longer blame David Rockefeller and some of the others who have died, or are about to die, of old age, and almost nobody is dumb enough to believe that the Vatican is in control of this network, so today they are putting most of the focus on Hillary Clinton. This video is perhaps the most blatant. It has the title, HILLARY CLINTON - THE ROOT OF ALL CORRUPTION.

Hopefully the people who are reading my documents realize that the video about Clinton is just another trick to divert attention away from Israel and Jews and onto whoever the Jews are willing to sacrifice. For example, notice that while they promote Clinton as the "root of all corruption", they try to suppress investigations of Comet Ping Pong Pizza and James Alefantis.

Did you listen to Ben Szemkus claim to have been at a NXIVM recruitment party where he encountered James Alefantis, Stormy Daniels, Eric Schneiderman, Anthony Weiner, and other famous or influential people? His remarks can help us understand why the Jews want us to focus on Clinton, rather than the Comet pizza parlor. Specifically, an investigation of that pizza parlor may expose the pedophile network's connection to the government and Hollywood.

It may also explain why Stormy Daniels is attacking Donald Trump. What is her relationship with NXIVM, James Alefantis, and pedophilia? Why and how do pornography actresses get the opportunity to meet wealthy business executives, government officials, and other leaders of society? Who arranges for such meetings?

We would be fools to ignore the Comet pizza parlor, and the connection between Stormy Daniels and the other people that Ben Szemkus saw at a NXIVM recruitment party. We would also be fools to assume that arresting Hillary Clinton will stop the crime network. She is just a puppet who is following orders. If we arrest her, the crime network will simply replace her with another puppet.

I am not implying that Hillary Clinton is honest or "innocent". Rather, I am simply pointing out the technique that the Jews use, which is to stay hidden, and find some foolish puppet to put at the center of attention.

The Jews have fooled a lot of Trump supporters into chanting "Lock Her Up!" We need to focus our attention on destroying the crime network, not on the puppets that they dangle in front of us.

Many of the "pedophile investigators" are also describing the pedophiles as "Luciferian Pedophiles", "Devil Worshiping Pedophiles", or "Satanic Pedophiles". I suspect that they were told to use those adjectives to divert our attention away from the fact that many of the pedophiles are Jewish.

Millions of people have already been deceived by Jews into starting two world wars, a Korean war, a Vietnam war, and a Middle Eastern war that is still going on today. When are we going to learn from these mistakes?

When are we going to stop letting a group of Jews tell us who to investigate, fight, arrest, hate, and execute?

When are we going to think for ourselves and stop acting like stupid dogs who attack whoever the Jews tell us to attack?

The video that accuses Hillary Clinton of being the "root of all corruption" was created in September 2018, and at about the same time a mysterious group called Freedom News Report claimed that WikiLeaks will "bring Hillary Clinton down by October 21" if Trump doesn't do it.

However, Wikileaks is not going to expose Clinton's pedophile activities. Instead, they are claiming to have proof of her "mishandling sensitive material", and that:

"...she is guilty of high treason against the United States for selling patented military secrets to the Saudi Arabian government.

We also have proof that she is guilty of crimes against Russia, Uzbekistan, Lithuania, Caledonia, and Brazil."

This is just another trick. Specifically, if the pedophiles can arrange for Clinton to be arrested only for mishandling information, they will pacify the Trump supporters who are chanting "Lock her up", but they will not expose their pedophile network, or how their pedophile network has connections to Israel, Hollywood, the media, the Google executives, and the Jews in Russia, Britain, and other nations.

By arresting Hillary Clinton for mishandling information, the Trump supporters will celebrate the "draining of the swamp", and they will praise President Trump for being the greatest of presidents.

Meanwhile, the pedophiles, Jews, Israelis, and their criminal friends will be laughing as they continue their criminal operations, and their takeover of the world. Perhaps that is the secretive "plan" that Q tells us to trust.

Since WikiLeaks published the DNC email messages that started the pizzagate accusations, you might assume that WikiLeaks wants to expose and destroy the pedophile network, but it is possible that they published those emails only because they assumed it would expose how the DNC was sabotaging Bernie Sanders, and they had no idea that those emails would also expose their pedophile network.

Incidentally, if WikiLeaks has proof that Clinton has been committing crimes, why have they been keeping it a secret? And is it legal for them to hold onto that proof? Or does that make them an accessory to the crime? Have they been keeping this information a secret in order to blackmail Clinton? Is she really the root of all corruption, or is she just another of their victims?

It may turn out that the Clintons truly are high-level members of the crime network, and that the Jews are willing to sacrifice her and a few other members in an attempt to protect the others, but we should decide whether Clinton is a criminal or a victim. We should learn from the mistakes of the past and stop letting the Jews use us as attack dogs.

The "truth seekers" on the Internet are claiming that Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, and others are involved with torturing children and then murdering them in order to get adrenochrome. Some of them also mention that the Hollywood movie called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas promotes the use of adrenochrome. (If you are unfamiliar with this issue, here is an example that was written by the "truth seeker" named April LaJune.)

If Hillary Clinton really is the root of all corruption, and if there really is a frazzledrip video that shows this process of acquiring adrenochrome, the Jews could release it to the public to provide proof that Hillary Clinton should be arrested. Then the police could arrest the root of all corruption. So why don't they release that video?

Perhaps because the video would show us that some Jews extracted the adrenochrome, not Clinton. The video might also cause people to identify the child, and that might help people figure out that it is the Jews who are the primary group of people who are kidnapping and distributing the children. The video might also cause people to wonder who recorded the video, and why they recorded it.

What is the true history of adrenochrome? Who came up with the idea of kidnapping children and torturing them to death in order to acquire adrenochrome? How did the writers of that Hollywood movie know about the issue in the 1990s? How many decades (or centuries?) have people been doing this?

If Hillary Clinton is truly involved with this activity, who supplies her with the children? Who taught her how to extract the adrenochrome? If somebody gave you a kidnapped child, would you know how to get adrenochrome from him? Do you need any special instruments, enzymes, or other chemicals? If so, who provides them to Clinton?

The Jews have a history of being involved with prostitution, drug dealing, slavery, strip clubs, loansharking, and gambling. My father, who got all of his information from the television and paper media, told me that the reason Jews got involved with those activities is because - for the past few centuries - the Jews have been discriminated against, and so they had no other options to make a living.

It is certainly true that some people did not want to hire Jews, but there are also Jews who do not want to hire Goyim, and there are some Jews who don't want to hire Jews who practice a different variation of Judaism (the diamond businesses in New York City are an example). The people who are denied one of those jobs are not forced to do something illegal. They have the option of taking some other job, or starting their own business.

My father believed the propaganda that Jews are innocent victims of anti-Semites, but it makes more sense to assume that the Jews got involved with disgusting and illegal businesses because they were attracted to those particular activities.

If we were to remove the secrecy that we are providing everybody, I suspect that we would discover that it is the Jews who have been promoting the use of adrenochrome, not the Clintons. And it is the Jews who are the primary group involved with the kidnapping and distribution of children.

In addition to trying to divert our attention away from Jews and onto Clinton, I hope you can see that the Jews and "truth seekers" are regularly trying to convince us that various government agencies are spying on us. They are hoping that we will frighten ourselves into believing that there are hidden cameras in our bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens, and that there are cubicles full of government employees who are watching us, and listening to all of our conversations.

An example of some videos posted this month (September 2018) is this and this, both of which are a waste of your time to watch, unless you haven't seen this type of propaganda before.

Hopefully you can understand that the reason they are trying to cause us to fear government surveillance is because they are frightened of surveillance. They are worried that the honest people in the government are starting to realize that the enemy is not a group of Arabs who live in caves, and not a group of Nazis, and not the Russians, Chinese, or North Koreans. Rather, our enemy is living among us. Our enemy is some of our neighbors, coworkers, government officials, journalists, school teachers, policemen, military officers, Hollywood executives, and doctors.

It is possible that the Jews were involved with the creation of the surveillance system a few decades ago, and they may have designed it according to the system that their communist friends had set up in Russia and East Germany to watch over the citizens and identify the critics of communism. Today, however, the Jews might be worried that the honest Americans are going to use that surveillance system to identify the criminal Jews and pedophiles.

In other words, when the Jews try to frighten us about the government surveillance programs, they may be telling us about the surveillance programs that they set up for themselves to use to watch over us, and now they are afraid that their surveillance network is going to be used against them.

We don't need to stop the surveillance; we need the opposite. We need to get rid of the secrecy that we are providing people, and we need to watch more people more closely. We need to determine who among us is involved with criminal activities, who they associate with, how they fund their criminal operations, how they transport and distribute the kidnapped children, and who is purchasing the kidnapped children.

For example, some anonymous person recently posted a photo that he claims is the young girl that was killed by Hillary Clinton in the Frazzledrip video, but does it really show that girl? Or is it just a photo of a girl who was attacked by a dog, as some people claim? There is a music group that is using it on the cover of their album, so it's also possible that it is not a real girl at all but a plastic, Halloween display.

It is a gruesome photo, but if you are interested, you can see it at this twitter page, among other locations, and notice that somebody embedded the accusation about Clinton into the photo. The photo has been edited to reduce contrast, but it is still unpleasant. The unedited photo can be found as the cover photo of this music album.You can also find it here, where the person is claiming the girl is a victim of a pit bull.

The photo was first posted in the late 1990's, so perhaps somebody will recall a girl with red hair who was killed by a pit bull at that time, or disappeared mysteriously. If it really is the girl in the frazzledrip video, the person who first posted the photo may be involved with the crime network, in which case we should identify him and his friends.

If that photo is not of a young girl that Clinton killed, then why would somebody claim that it is? If he is doing it to give the frazzledrip video a bad image, then he may be a member of the pedophile network, in which case we should identify him and his friends. Or, if he was fooled into posting it, then identifying the person who gave him the photo would identify people in the pedophile network.

Or, if he posted it to make Clinton look bad, then he should be identified and arrested.

No matter how you look at this issue, we do not benefit from secrecy. Only criminals benefit from secrecy.

If you have looked at the information that the 9/11 "investigators" have been providing to us during the past 17 years, you should have noticed that a lot of their information is deceptive, and almost all of the investigators are Jews, or working with Jews. It should be obvious that their purpose for investigating 9/11 is to shift the blame for the 9/11 attack away from Jews, or to give 9/11 conspiracy theories a bad image, or to make the 9/11 attack so confusing that people become frustrated and stop investigating it.

Identifying the people who are posting false and misleading information is useful because it can help us identify the crime network. We should not ignore false or slanderous information.

If that frazzledrip video really does exist, then we ought to ask ourselves where Clinton got that young girl. I doubt that Clinton is kidnapping children. I suspect that if we were to eliminate secrecy, we would discover that Israel has a network of Jews around the world who are kidnapping and distributing children, and using them to blackmail government officials, journalists, military leaders, FBI agents, and policemen.

In previous documents I pointed out that the people who do blackmail are successful only if they can fool their victims into being frightened of being exposed. The reason is because the blackmailers are afraid of being exposed, also.

The Jews who are blackmailing Clinton, Trump, and other people have much more to lose from being exposed than their victims. For example, if the frazzledrip video exists, it brings up such issues as: Who is that girl? Who gave her to Clinton? Who recorded the video? Where did they keep that video all these years? How many other videos do they have in their storage center?

Likewise, the Jews may have video of Donald Trump selecting a teenage girl from a group of children, and then raping her, but they don't want to release that video because it brings up such issues as: Who is forcing Trump and other people to choose a child to rape? How are they getting those children? How many people besides Trump are forced into this activity? Is this happening in other nations, also? Has Vladimir Putin been forced to rape a child? How can a small number of criminals be successful with forcing so many people to do such a thing? Or is it a very large crime network? Why don't the police or FBI stop this crime? Why doesn't the military stop it? Or are many of the FBI, police, and military officials involved with that network?

The Jews do not want their pedophile operations to be exposed. That is the reason they want Clinton arrested for something besides pedophilia and murder, such as "mishandling information". It is also the reason they are not exposing Donald Trump's rape of a teenage girl. The Jews have much more to lose by exposing this information than Trump and Clinton do.

Furthermore, note that many of the truth seekers on the Internet want Hillary Clinton executed. The truth seekers imply that it is because they are appalled with her crimes, but consider the possibility that it is because they are afraid that if she were given the chance to have a fair trial, she would appear to be a victim of the Jews.

For all we know, Clinton was forced into torturing the girl to death, rather than doing it because she wanted to. Did you listen to Katy Groves complain that when she was a child, she was forced to gouge out the eyes of another young girl? And then she had to kill the girl.

The Jews depend upon people being easily frightened. Now that the Jews are trying to instigate the hatred and execution of Hillary Clinton, she doesn't have anything to lose. She should stand up to the Jews, and encourage Trump and others to join her.

Perhaps Clint Eastwood could encourage Trump, Clinton, and the other blackmailed puppets to find the courage to tell the Jews, "Go ahead, Jews! Expose me! Make my day!" Or is Eastwood also being blackmailed? Was he also forced to make a sacrifice to the Hollywood Jews?

To summarize this section of the document, the Jews are regularly trying to frighten us about government surveillance, and they promote secrecy on the Internet, but secrecy allows crime networks to hide and thrive among us. We need to eliminate secrecy so that we can determine who among us is involved with crimes.

If you want more advantages to removing secrecy, I discuss a lot of them throughout this document.

I have not paid much attention to the appointments of people to government, but I don't recall any person encountering such an extreme amount of resistance as Brett Kavanaugh. The hatred of Kavanaugh is so bizarre, crude, and extreme that it reminds me of the treatment that Trump received when he was running for president. As with Trump, the people who oppose him do not have any intelligent reasons for their opposition. Rather, it seems to be due to fear.

In other words, the people who oppose Kavanaugh are not pointing out that he has conflicts of interest, or that he has performed inadequately in some of his previous jobs, or that they oppose his particular attitudes about how the laws should be interpreted. Rather, they seem to hate and fear him.

For example, in September 2018, a group of people who oppose Kavanaugh harassed Ted Cruz and his wife inside a restaurant, and Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about cutting off Kavanaugh's penis.

There are lots of accusations and evidence that a lot of our government officials are corrupt, and there are accusations that Steven Spielberg is a pedophile, and that his friends murdered Heather O'Rourke, so why are people ignoring all of those serious accusations and focusing a tremendous amount of hatred on Kavanaugh? If the people who oppose Kavanaugh are as concerned about abusive leaders as they claim to be, why don't they show an interest in removing any of the other abusive people from leadership positions?

If we could remove secrecy and look closely at the people who are opposing Kavanaugh and harassing him at restaurants, we might discover that they have connections to a pedophile network, and that they are terrified that Kavanaugh is going to help Trump destroy their network.

Or, perhaps we would discover that Kavanaugh is actually worse than what people are accusing him of. Regardless of what we would discover, it is yet another example of how secrecy is hurting you and me and helping criminals.

As I mentioned many times, our best policy is to take an active role in our future, not be a passive child who hopes and waits for somebody to take care of us. Furthermore, keep in mind that all US government officials are representatives with very little authority, which means that even if Trump and some other officials want to do something useful for us, none of them has enough authority to do much of anything.

The only way we are going to bring significant improvements to the USA is to find a lot of people who have enough self-control to put aside their own selfish cravings and work together for the benefit of the nation. We also need to find a lot of people who are pioneers and explorers, rather than liberals and conservatives.

I suspect that most of the people who recommend that we keep the fight with the crime network a secret are actually trying to protect the network, not destroy it.

To complicate this issue, some of the people who want secrecy may truly want to destroy the crime network, but they were tricked or forced by the crime network into doing something they are ashamed of, such as raping a child, and now they are afraid of that being exposed. Perhaps Trump and many of our law enforcement and military officials are in this predicament.

If you or someone you know is a blackmail victim, try to reduce your fear of being exposed by reminding yourself that the Jews and pedophiles want and need secrecy more than their blackmail victims. If the blackmail victims rebel one at a time, the corrupt police officers and FBI agents can arrest or assassinate them, but if a large number of them rebel at about the same time, they will destroy the crime network by exposing the people in it and their connections to the police, FBI, government, military, and journalists.

Now that the Internet exists, the blackmail victims can easily spread information around the world instantaneously by posting documents and videos to identify the criminals, and explain exactly what they have been doing. The blackmail victims can provide us with the names of a lot of the criminals, and they can provide details to a lot of mysterious historical events and murders. So if you are one of their blackmail victims, try to encourage the other victims to start releasing information to destroy the network.

One of the reasons people dismiss the accusation that government officials are under the control of Jews is that it is difficult to imagine how a small group of Jews can control leaders all over the world. I think we can understand how the Jews are controlling government officials, billionaire businessmen, and religious leaders by understanding how they control the Hollywood celebrities.

All of us want to be wealthy and famous, so I would not be surprised if every person has fantasized at least once about having a role in a Hollywood movie. However, we differ in how strong our craving is to be a Hollywood celebrity. If we could measure that craving, we would create a bell curve. Those of us with a low interest would not do much of anything to get an acting job.

The people at the other extreme of the bell curve, who have an intense craving to be a Hollywood celebrity, would be willing to do quite a bit in order to get the job. For example, performing a few sex acts on Hollywood directors would seem to be a trivial price to pay.

After those people have performed the sex acts and been given a job in Hollywood, the Jews would observe them and pass judgment on which of them is still so desperate to become a wealthy and famous celebrity that they will "take it to the next level" and do something that is so illegal that the Jews can easily blackmail them over it, thereby giving the Jews control over them.

That technique can explain how the Jews are capable of controlling government officials around the world. Specifically, the Jews probe the political candidates in order to find a candidate who has such an intense craving to be a government official that he will do whatever is necessary to become an official; a candidate who is willing to do something so illegal that he can easily be blackmailed over it.

More than a decade ago I wrote about how the rules of a "selection system" determine what type of people are sifted out from the population. The Jews have set up a selection system for Hollywood celebrities and political candidates that will sift out the people who have such an abnormally intense desire to satisfy their cravings that they will "do whatever is necessary" to achieve their goals.

The end result is that the Jews are giving us Hollywood celebrities and government officials who are at the extreme edge of the bell curve; people with such intense cravings to please themselves that they will do illegal acts to satisfy their cravings. Their extreme desire to satisfy themselves, and their lack of interest in society or other people, can explain why so many celebrities and government officials have trouble forming pleasant friendships, marriages, and business relationships.

Why do some people have such a strong craving for wealth and fame that they will commit crimes in order to become wealthy and famous? Why are some of us satisfied to have an ordinary income and an ordinary house? What is different about the Hollywood celebrities and government officials that causes them to want extreme amounts of wealth, pampering, and fame?

Because of genetic variations between us, some people will have a naturally higher craving for wealth and status, and of those people, some will have a stronger desire to satisfy their cravings and less of a concern for other people, thereby making them more likely to commit crimes in order to achieve their goals.

However, I suspect that the people who are becoming Hollywood celebrities are more likely to be suffering from some type of internal mental problem, such as bipolar disorder, which causes them to be perpetually unhappy. I think they have come to the false conclusion that wealth and fame will make them feel better about themselves.

The Hollywood celebrities and government officials do not seem to be enjoying life. I have the impression that they are suffering, and that they assume that they can find happiness with wealth and status. If my assumption is accurate, we could say they are victims of the Jews who took advantage of their misery. We could even describe them as being tricked and exploited by the Jews.

In several of my documents I mentioned that schools should be teaching children to look critically at themselves and try to identify their strengths and weaknesses. If the Hollywood stars and government officials had been able to recognize that they have something wrong with them, then instead of assuming that wealth and fame will end their misery, they would have experimented with their diet, lifestyle, sleeping patterns, attitudes, and mental health drugs. They made a big mistake by assuming that wealth and fame will bring them happiness.

The Hollywood celebrities and government officials are proud of themselves for being wealthy and famous, but after listening to the accusations that they are providing sex services, and sometimes having their friends and family members murdered, in return for becoming wealthy and famous, they remind me of a retarded boy in my junior high school.

When I was in junior high school, there was a retarded boy who would occasionally wander around during lunch. A few of the badly behaved boys thought it was funny to tell the retarded boy to make a lewd remark to one the girls. Since the boy was retarded, he didn't understand what he was saying, so he would do it. To make the situation more sad, the boys who told him to do it would then praise him for doing it, and he would smile and be proud of himself. Eventually the teachers found out about this abuse, and they stopped letting the retarded boy have lunch with the rest of us.

What is the difference between some boys tricking that mentally retarded boy into making a lewd remark to a girl, and some Hollywood Jews convincing an unhappy person into providing sex services, or agreeing to have a friend or family member murdered? The main difference is that the teachers eventually stopped allowing the retarded boy from being abused, but our police, FBI, and courts allow the Hollywood Jews to abuse the unhappy people.

A group of retarded people have been given shirts to fool them into believing they are superheroes.

In the photo to the right, some retarded people have become excited by the thought that they are superheroes. It reminds me of how the Hollywood entertainers become excited by the thought that they are wealthy and famous "stars" and "celebrities".

The only difference between the retarded people in that photo and the Hollywood celebrities is that the retarded people don't have to do anything disgusting to get the superhero shirts, whereas the Hollywood Jews demand that the unhappy people first provide sex services, or choose a friend or family member to be murdered.

Should the celebrities be proud of themselves? Should we admire them for their achievements? Or should we regard them as mentally ill people who have been exploited and abused by a gang of Jews?

We need to design a selection system for government officials that will sift out the people who have enough self-control to put the needs of society ahead of their own selfish cravings. The Jews are giving us the opposite; they are giving us government officials who have such intense cravings to satisfy themselves that they don't want to spend any of their time helping society. All they care about is becoming the center of attention, getting rid of their competitors, and having hordes of peasants worship and pamper them.

The issue of "selection systems" applies to a lot of our activities, not just the selection of government officials and entertainers. For example, when we create a sports event, we are setting up a selection system to determine who is the best at a particular athletic event. If we do not design the sports event properly, we will encourage undesirable behavior, and the winners of the events will be people with undesirable qualities.

For example, if a sports event offers an extremely desirable reward to the athlete who wins the event, such as a very large amount of money, but nothing of significance to any of the other athletes, then the winners of the contest are likely to be the athletes who have such abnormally intense cravings for that particular reward that they will be willing to put abnormal amounts of time and effort into practicing and training for the event.

If the athletes are not prevented from using hormones, drugs, and other performance-enhancing techniques, then the winner of the event will likely be whoever is most willing to risk his health and life on those performance enhancements.

If the contestants are also not prevented from sabotaging or murdering one another, then the winner of the event will likely be whoever is best at sabotage or murder.

Furthermore, some of the athletes who enter the contest may have no interest in the sport, or in any of the other athletes. They may get involved with the sport only because they have intense cravings for the prize.

At the other extreme, if the same sports event is altered so that there are no prizes, a different group of athletes will be attracted to the event, which means that different athletes will end up winning the event. The only athletes attracted to the event will be those who enjoy the event and/or the other athletes. Since the athletes will not have much concern about winning, there will be significantly less cheating and arguing, and they will be more likely to enjoy the athletes, the event, and the exercise. If they are playing outside during the day, they will also be more likely to notice and appreciate the sunshine and the trees, and if they are playing at night, they will be more likely to appreciate the stars and the moon.

By changing the rules of a selection event, we change who is interested in participating in it, how they behave, what they enjoy about it, and who wins it. As we increase the rewards for winning, we cause the people to put more emphasis on winning, which in turn encourages arguments and cheating, and makes the event more stressful, less enjoyable, and less useful.

If you have been watching the CrossFit games, you may have noticed that this has been happening to their annual games. The CrossFit exercises were developed to help people in the military, fire department, and other organizations that required extreme physical exertion and awkward body positions. However, because men are competitive, they soon set up a sports event to determine who could do some sets of exercises faster.

The first games in 2007 were somewhat casual and fun, but through the years the competitions attracted more people and more advertising, and the prizes became larger. The end result is that in 2018, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of people around the world who are training all year for the CrossFit games. They are not doing the exercises to improve their health, or because they are in the military or fire department. Rather, they are training to win a sports contest. And, according to some people, a lot of those athletes are also taking drugs and hormones in order to improve their performance.

The CrossFit games are no longer the casual activities they originally were. They are now intense competitions for large prizes. If the CrossFit organization does not change the course they are on, their prizes will soon be in the millions of dollars, and the CrossFit organization will become like the NFL and other professional sports groups that attract psychotic people with such intense cravings for money that everybody's primary goal is to exploit everybody else for money, and nobody cares whether any of the athletes are suffering from brain damage, liver damage, or shoulder damage.

If the accusations are true that a low level entertainer has to select somebody to be murdered or raped in order to become a wealthy and famous celebrity, we ought to wonder if government officials have a similar requirement. If a low level candidate, such as the mayor of a small town, wants to become a Senator or Governor, does he also have to select somebody to be murdered? Or do the Jews offer political candidates a different blackmail option?

People have been wishing for a cure for diseases and old age for as long as the human mind has been capable of thinking. This desire is so strong that all throughout history people have been hurting themselves in the process of finding such cures. Millions of people have experimented with a variety of drugs, rhinoceros horns, acupuncture, and voodoo, and some people have traveled around the world to find a fountain of youth.

The drawing below is a portion of a painting made in 1546 of women bathing in a fountain of youth.

A crime network might not be able to bribe you for $20 million, but what if a group of wealthy, elderly people such as George Soros, Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller, were to tell you that scientists have discovered that occasionally drinking or injecting the blood of children will prevent you from getting diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and that you will live a healthy, active life for possibly 120 years?

If you wonder how a crime network could possibly fool people with such a ridiculous offer, the answer can be seen by looking at religions and political elections.

A crime network doesn't need any proof for their claims, just as churches don't need any proof for anything they claim. Churches are very profitable, extremely popular organizations because people want to believe in what the Churches say, not because the Churches have evidence for their beliefs.

As I pointed out in this document, the NRA doesn't have to provide any evidence that the second amendment gives us the right to own any type and quantity of gun we please. The NRA members don't care whether there is evidence for their beliefs. They believe whatever they want to believe.

Likewise, political candidates don't need any proof that they're going to improve the nation. The candidates can get support simply by making vague promises, and finding voters who want to believe those promises.

You can also see this characteristic of people by noticing how we love getting compliments. People, especially men, have a strong craving to be at the top of the hierarchy. As a result, when somebody praises us, they don't have to provide any supporting evidence for their praise. We want to believe the praise is true, so we will believe it.

If a person in a sports event cheats in order to win, and if you praise him for being the the most talented of athletes, he will love the praise, even though he is fully aware that he cheated. He wants to think of himself as the greatest athlete, and he doesn't need any evidence to support that belief. He will love the praise even when he knows it is false. And he will proudly hold his trophy up in the air for everybody to see, and he will titillate himself with praise.

Our mind does not need any evidence for our beliefs. The human mind was designed for survival and reproduction, not intelligent thought. We have a tendency to believe whatever pleases our emotions. Our mind doesn't look for supporting evidence. And we will ignore a belief that our emotions are irritated by, even if there is overwhelming evidence to support the belief.

Con artists, politicians, and advertisers regularly take advantage of this characteristic by offering us whatever we want, and giving us lots of praise.

If you tell people what they want to hear, they will like you and trust you. It is equivalent to offering a dog a piece of meat. The dog is going to follow you around, even if you don't provide him with any evidence that he's going to get the meat eventually. If you do not give the dog the piece of meat, the dog is not going to regard you as a liar. Rather, you can use the same trick on another day, and he will be fooled once again.

This is exactly what happens with voters. During every election, the political candidates make the same type of promises, and after the election is over, they fail to keep their promises. However, the voters never learn from this. Instead, they fall for the same trick during every election, just like the animals.

A crime network will be successful in bribing or blackmailing a person if they can offer him something that he has such a strong craving for that he is willing to commit a crime in order to get it. For the people who cannot be bribed with money or sex, the crime network could offer something we all have a strong desire for, which is a long and healthy life.

However, rather than offer us some herbs, they show us news reports in which scientists claim that the blood of young children will let us live a long and healthy life. After they get us excited with those reports, they point out that there is not enough of this blood available legally, and so only the elite members of society are able to do this, and they are using the blood of the unwanted children.

The crime network would point out that what they are doing is illegal, but they would reassure us that we needn't worry about being arrested for participating in it. They explain that the Child Protective Services are picking up the unwanted children, and the FBI, military, and police departments are protecting the operation rather than arresting people for it.

The criminals would explain that the people involved with this activity are the government officials, doctors, college professors, wealthy business executives, and other "respected leaders of society", rather than a gang of burglars or drug dealers. This is a group of the finest people in the human race. And you are a special person, also, which is why you are being offered the opportunity to join The Elite! So, sign your name in blood at the bottom of this contract!

“Did you know that you are special? You are! “And this is your lucky day because we are offering you the opportunity to join The Elite, and live a long and healthy life! But hurry, our offer ends soon! “And if you join now you will get an autographed photo of Henry Kissinger! “But wait! Before you answer, if you join now, you'll also be given a gold and diamond Illuminati ring!”

The reason I suspect that crime networks are making this offer of children's blood is because this month (September 2018), there were more news articles about a new scientific study that shows that the injections of children's blood will allow us to live a long and healthy life. However, these news articles seem even less serious than they were years ago. One of the most extreme is this from the Daily Mail. The headline is:

Dracula was onto something! Top scientists claim transfusions of young blood will put an END to sickness in old age

A more serious news article would point out that scientists have conducted hundreds of experiments about aging, but they still cannot say how to make any human, animal, or plant live longer than what we see happening in nature.

Why are these news articles coming out now? And why are some of them almost stating as a fact that the children's blood will stop the deterioration of old-age?

I suspect that it is because the Jewish crime network has been using children's blood as a bribe to get people to join their network, and now there are a lot of people who are wondering if they have been tricked, and so the Jews are reacting to the potential rebellion by telling the journalists to put out more articles about how the blood truly is beneficial.

If the crime networks were obtaining the blood in a legal manner, then it would not serve any blackmail purpose. However, if they take the blood from children that they have kidnapped and murdered, then anybody who accepts the blood would be guilty of a serious crime.

How would a person justify taking the blood of murdered children? Perhaps the crime networks help their victims justify it by telling them something like this:

“We are taking only the unwanted children, such as the retards and orphans; the children from incompetent parents; and the excess children of the Third World nations. “All of the children that we take would have a short, unpleasant life, so we are not hurting them. We are merely putting them out of their misery. “Actually, these murders are for a good cause; namely, to help the elite members of the world live a long and healthy life. This will help the world because we are beneficial. We are the leaders in government, business, science, medicine, etc. By living longer, we can do more good for the world. “By sacrificing the useless eaters, the world benefits by having us live a longer, more productive life. In a sense, you could say that we should be doing this for the benefit of the world. We could even say that the useless eaters should gladly give their lives to us since they can't contribute anything else of value.”

Was President Trump a victim of this trick? Did the Jews convince him that children's blood will allow him to avoid Alzheimer's, which his father suffered from? Was Hillary Clinton a victim of this trick?

Were other government officials, sheriffs, military leaders, or professors a victim of this trick? Is this why so many influential people are submissive to the Jews? If so, and if you are one of the victims of this trick, you should stop being so afraid! The Jews are not going to expose you because it would expose their kidnapping and murdering operation.

If the blood of young children truly prevented deterioration from old-age, then the people getting that blood would be noticeably healthier and living longer than the rest of us. However, just look around at the people in your own city and you will notice that there are some people who are healthy and active in their 90s, but none of them had injections of children's blood.

In the photo below, Kissinger is meeting with President Trump, and if he is using the blood of children, he is proof that the blood has not stopped him from deteriorating from old age. During this recent interview, Ruth Ginsburg (below, right) could not even hold up her head. Furthermore, in 1999, she had colon cancer, and in 2009 she had pancreatic cancer, and in 2014 she had a stent placed in her coronary artery.

My mother is about one year older than Ginsburg, but my mother can hold up her head, and has never had cancer or stents.

David Rockefeller lived to be 101 years old, so was he getting injections of children's blood? In this interview, he does not appear to be any more healthy, youthful, or active than any other person who is 101 years old. And his eyes seem to be barely functioning. If he is using the blood of children, what good did it do him?

Some people might respond that Kissinger, Rockefeller, and Ginsberg are not using the blood of children, but if they are not using it, then who is? Where are the healthy, elderly people who can prove that this technique works?

If the blood of young children truly prevents age related problems, then we should see that some of the wealthy, elderly "elite" are remaining youthful and active in their old age. Instead we see that they are indistinguishable from the elderly peasants. Furthermore, the wealthy people can afford better medical care, so they should be much healthier in their old age.

If Donald Trump has been getting injections of children's blood, and if he is also developing Alzheimer's or going senile, then he is proof that children's blood does not stop those particular problems, either.

Children's blood might help some people who are suffering from some particular medical disorder, but that doesn't justify giving people injections of children's blood. Rather, it justifies funding research programs to understand why those people benefit from the blood, and then finding a more sensible solution to their problem. If you have trouble understanding this concept, consider how it applies to thyroid hormones.

A few decades ago more than 100 people in the Minnesota and South Dakota area began complaining of a bizarre medical disorder, and eventually it was discovered to be due to their consumption of ground beef that was coming from a particular company that was grinding the thyroid gland with the muscle meat.

To the people with normal thyroid hormone levels, that particular ground beef gave them an excess of thyroid hormones, which caused health problems. However, if some of the customers of that meat had low levels of thyroid hormones, as I do, that meat would have improved their health!

There are some people who benefit by eating thyroid glands, but that does not mean that everybody should eat thyroid glands. Likewise, just because one person benefits by having injections of children's blood, that does not justify giving everybody injections of blood. It doesn't even justify giving blood to the person who benefits from it. Rather, it justifies an investigation of why that person benefits from the blood, and an investigation of what would be a more sensible solution to his particular medical disorder.

Within every species of animal and plant, some individuals live longer than others, but nobody yet knows enough about DNA or the environment to be able to explain why some individuals have a longer and healthier life.

The CrossFit games divide the athletes up into different age groups, and the oldest age group is from 60 onward. Have you seen what those older athletes can do? If not, click here to jump to the section of the video that shows one of the events in the 2018 games for the men who are 60 years or older.

In that event, each athlete had to run 300 meters, then climb up a rope 4 times, and then carry a 300 pound yoke 44 feet. Then they had to repeat those three exercises four times. The 61-year-old man who won that event completed it in 11 minutes 32 seconds. There are many people younger than him who could not do it nearly as quickly. Why is he so healthy at age 61? Did he have injections of children's blood?

You might also find it interesting to compare those men to these 16 and 17-year-old girls, although the girls had to carry a 380 pound yoke. The girl who won the event completed it in 9 minutes and 58 seconds, about 1.5 minutes faster than the 61-year-old man, even though her yoke was 80 pounds heavier.

There are a lot of environmental factors that affect our health and longevity, such as food, pollution, exercise, radiation from outer space, and radiation from microwave towers and medical x-rays. However, there is nothing in the environment that will allow us to live to be 150 years old. Our DNA was not designed for such a long life, and there is nothing in the environment that can rewrite our DNA to give us such a life.

As I described here more than a decade ago, human DNA was designed to give us a life of only 40 to 50 years. Modern technology is allowing us to live many decades longer, but we deteriorate from age no matter what we do. The only way for those of us who are alive today to avoid old age is to rewrite our DNA, and then have something like a virus infect every cell in our body with that new DNA. We could also restrict reproduction to the families who have a longer and healthier life.

Unfortunately, the people who want to believe in a fountain of youth are going to do so regardless of the evidence. Those people are going to be attracted to businesses, con artists, and crime networks that offer them a longer and healthier life. Likewise:

The Chinese who want to believe that rhinoceros horns will cure their medical problems will do so regardless of the evidence.

• The people who want to believe that humans are a creation of a god rather than a descendant of an extinct species of monkeys are going to believe that theory regardless of what the evidence shows.

• The people who want to believe that their opinions about abortion are the only sensible opinions are going to believe that no matter what the evidence shows.

• The people who want to believe that they are not getting the respect they deserve are going to believe that they are being mistreated no matter what the evidence shows.

• The women who want to believe that men have been abusing women for thousands of years are going to believe that regardless of what the evidence shows.

• The people who want to believe that Caucasian Americans have "white privilege", or that we are Nazis, white supremacists, sexists, anti-Semites, or fascists, are going to believe that theory regardless of what the evidence shows.

Humans are nothing more than intelligent monkeys. We don't care about evidence. We tend to believe whatever appeals to our emotions. This makes us vulnerable to scams of crime networks. We must exert a lot of self-control in order to produce intelligent thoughts.

An example of how we are vulnerable to scams is that a lot of people believe that by purchasing Bitcoin, Ether, or other crypto currencies, they are going to become wealthy. The concept of an alternative currency is sensible, but the concept that we can all become wealthy simply by purchasing the currency is a variation of a "pyramid scheme."

The only way people can make profit by purchasing a currency is if they buy when the price is low, and then, after other people purchase it and the price goes up, they sell at the high price. Those few people will make a profit, but everybody else will lose money.

However, our government is not arresting any of the people who promote the concept that we can make money simply by purchasing the currencies. Perhaps it is because those people have found a loophole in the law. For example, when David Seaman boasts about how much money he is making from the crypto currencies, he frequently repeats the phrase, "not financial advice".

Ideally, we would design a legal system that does not allow people to get away with a crime simply by repeating some disclaimer like that. What would you think if a business was offering snake oil as a cure for cancer, but in their advertisement they had a disclaimer that "this is not medical advice"? Would that justify their deception?

Is David Seaman deliberately trying to deceive us into purchasing the currencies in an attempt to drive the price up so that he can profit from it? Or is he one of the victims of this scam who actually believes what he says?

His twitter account has been suspended, and in September 2018, most of his YouTube videos were deleted, but Twitter and YouTube didn't provide a sensible explanation for the censorship, so I suspect that he was censored because he was insisting that the pizzagate accusations were accurate, not because he was promoting crypto currencies.

The FDA has put a lot of restrictions on the pharmaceutical businesses, but there are still a lot of businesses that are making money on worthless products to help us live longer and healthier. Why would crime networks pass up such a profitable opportunity? The answer is that the criminals are not passing it up. They are actually making a lot of money on health products, but on the illegal methods of living longer and healthier, such as the sales of rhinoceros horns, tiger bones, and manta ray gills. Since there is a demand for children's blood, why would crime networks ignore the profit potential of that product?

There are a lot of Chinese people willing to purchase rhinoceros horns that were obtained illegally, which is evidence that those Chinese people don't care about the law, or about funding a crime network, or what happens to the animals. What is the difference between those Chinese people and the people who purchase the blood of murdered children?

Some people make excuses for the Chinese, such as they are ignorant and deceived, but then why not say the people who purchase the blood of murdered children are also ignorant and deceived?

To complicate the issue, imagine if a lot of the "top members of society" were using children's blood, and that the operation was being conducted and protected by the FBI, courts, and military, rather than a gang of criminals. That would make the operation appear to be a special program for special people.

I would not be surprised if there are thousands of people in leadership positions who have been deceived into drinking or injecting the blood of murdered children. The reason I suspect this is because there are frequently accusations of large numbers of children disappearing, such as after the hurricane in Haiti, and that suspicious tsunami in Thailand. How can so many children vanish?

Some of those children may have been sold as sex or labor slaves, but we ought to consider the possibility that some of them were drained of their blood. If so, this would indicate that there are a lot of people in leadership positions who want the blood of children. This in turn could explain why the leaders of governments, businesses, and other organizations around the world are so resistant to exposing the crimes of Israel.

Occasionally there are awkward periods of silence during lunch or dinner because we run out of issues to talk about, so here are two suggestions for you:

Is Trump a Jewish puppet? Is that why he won't expose their crimes?

• Why is Trump subservient to Jews?

Trump has had four bankruptcies, as well as lesser financial problems. News articles, such as this one at Forbes, make it seem like Trump was merely conducting ordinary business transactions, but after listening to Jenny claim that Trump was forced into choosing a child to rape, we ought to wonder if Trump asked for financial help from the Jewish crime network, and they told him that he had to "make a sacrifice" in order to get the enormous amounts of money that he needed.

Is that the reason he raped the teenage girl? If so, what would the Jews demand if he asked for money a second time, or a third time? Would he have to take it to the next level? If so, what would that be?

If he did not rape that teenage girl in order to deal with his financial problems, then what was the reason he had to rape her? Is it possible that the crime network is so large and has so much control over the police and FBI that they can force almost every wealthy person to commit such a crime and become one of their puppets?

• Why is Sundar Pichai the CEO of Google?

The Google executives appear to be members of a Jewish crime network, not a group of independent, honest, respectable business executives. For example, as I explained here, they lied about the James Damore memo in order to intimidate and manipulate the Google employees and the rest of the world.

Furthermore, Google is promoting the concept that some of us are Nazis, Fascists, sexists, and other types of evil people who have "white privilege". They also allow their employees to learn how to punch Nazis. Our police should arrest them for slandering people, encouraging hatred, and instigating fights.

The Google executives are also censoring the people and information that they don't like. They are criminals who are using diabolical techniques to manipulate our opinions.

However, Pichai is from India, and he is not a Jew, so why would a group of criminal Jews promote him to such an important position in Google? How did he earn their trust? How can they be certain that he will not secretly sabotage their operation? How do they keep him under control? Was it because Pichai agreed to "take it to the next level"? Did he agree to have a friend or family member murdered?

Or was Pichai already involved with a crime network in India, such as a network that kidnaps Indian children for sex slavery? Was he the distributor of sex slaves to the wealthy people in California? Was that how he met the Google Jews? Is that why they trust him?

Incidentally, in case you didn't notice, one of the girls in the photo to the right looks pregnant, and the other girl may be pregnant, also. What happens to their babies?

Also, it is interesting to note that conservatives become hysterical about abortion, but they do nothing about the problem of pedophilia. They don't want retarded or unwanted children to be aborted, but they don't care if those children end up as sex slaves, or if they are tortured to death for adrenochrome.

Show a conservative some of the videos from Jennifer Guskin, such as this, or from Katy Groves, such as this, and notice whether they want to do something about the pedophiles, or hide from them. Also, note whether they insist that everybody own a gun. Are they willing to pick up their gun, get together with the police and military, and arrest the pedophiles?

Our initial emotional reaction to the incredible corruption in the world is to become angry with the criminals, but we need to exert some self-control and force ourselves to think about the issue. Life is more complex than it appears.

There is an incredible level of crime and corruption in the world, but we are not going to understand it, or reduce it, simply by hating or punishing the criminals. The reason is because the criminals are not a different species. They are humans, just like you and me. They have the same mental and physical qualities that you and I have. They are our relatives. We need to understand why some humans behave in this manner, and only then can we start experimenting with methods to reduce the problem.

To understand how complex this problem is, consider that we could say that the majority of people are partly to blame for crime and corruption. The voters, for example, are consistently electing criminals and blackmailed puppets to be sheriffs, mayors, district attorneys, Senators, and presidents. How can we possibly eliminate corruption in government when the voters are constantly replacing one corrupt official with another corrupt official?

The voters are not selecting appropriate leaders. They are behaving like children who elect whoever promises them the most candy. Furthermore, the voters do not want to give job performance reviews to the government officials, sheriffs, and other people that they have elected.

To make the situation worse, those of us who are trying to expose the crime and corruption are ridiculed or ignored by the majority of people. How can we possibly reduce crime and corruption when most people interfere with our attempts to expose and stop the corruption?

If you agree with me that men and women are genetically different, then we can excuse women for not taking an active role in politics, corruption, and other issues. A woman's mind was designed to take care of a family and home, not to fight with crime networks or provide leadership to a society. Furthermore, women are too submissive, polite, and "nice" to fight with crime networks.

However, the adult men do not have any excuse for being apathetic, or for deserting those of us who are being attacked by crime networks. The adult men who do not have an interest in society should be classified as substandard, genetically inferior men whose behavior is very similar to an animal. They should not be allowed to vote, get into leadership positions, or influence the economy, schools, holidays, or other culture. They are as dangerous to a society as a sailor on a submarine who ignores leaks in the walls.

Consider an extreme example if you're having trouble with this concept. Imagine if the majority of people were covered with ticks. As they traveled around the city, the ticks would lay billions of eggs in the offices, restaurants, museums, and city parks. Every person and animal that traveled into the city would pick up hundreds of ticks.

Imagine that you are one of the few people who are keeping yourself and our home free of ticks, but every time you walk outside, you pick up thousands of ticks. If you were to become angry at the ticks, you would be wasting your time because they are not the source of the problem. The problem is the people who are so apathetic, and/or stupid that they refuse to acknowledge that they are covered by ticks.

Every animal has a strong desire to groom itself, so they all spend time each day cleaning their body of ticks, fleas, and bits of trash. Humans inherited that same desire for grooming, but we never evolved a desire to perform a grooming operation on our society. Instead, we focus on ourselves and our family, and when somebody irritates us with their bad behavior, we have a tendency to avoid and ignore him rather than deal with him.

It was beneficial during prehistoric times for people to avoid a badly behaved person because that would significantly reduce his success in survival and reproduction, but in our modern world, it is allowing them to form crime networks.

When some of the members of an organization are avoiding and ignoring the misfit members, they create a social environment that is analogous to a mixture of oil and water. The organization will be a "gathering of individuals", not a "united team".

Furthermore, since the misfits are ignored, they can get involved with crime and corruption without the other members noticing. An extreme example of this problem is Jeffrey Dahmer, who was raping, killing, and eating people without anybody noticing because his neighbors were ignoring him. Another example is that the Jews have been able to get away with kidnapping the Bollyn family because so many people have become accustomed to ignoring their neighbors.

During prehistoric times, the misfits could not possibly get away with kidnapping or killing people. Although the misfits were shunned by the other members of their tribe, everybody knew what they were doing because there was no secrecy in that era. There were no walls, homes, or buildings to isolate the people.

Everybody in a prehistoric tribe knew the intimate details of what their neighbors were doing, and how they were living their lives, and who they associated with, and how they treated other people. They even knew who was snoring the loudest at night.

It should be noted that business executives do not tolerate an oil and water type of social environment. They want all of their employees to be a united team. They want the managers to regularly observe the employees and ensure that they are working together as a team, and doing something useful for the team. When they discover that one of the employees is a misfit, they will try to find a group where he will fit in, or they fire him. They do not turn their back on him, ignore him, and allow him to do whatever he pleases.

By watching over the employees and ensuring that they are all productive team members, it would be impossible for an employee to behave like Jeffrey Dahmer; specifically, kidnapping and killing people in his office.

We must apply the same principles to an entire society. Our government officials should be like parents or supervisors who watch over the people, and ensure that everybody is doing a job that is useful to society, and that everybody fits into the team. When the government notices that somebody is not fitting in, we should not avoid and ignore him because that will cause him to become lonely and miserable, and it will also allow him to get away with crimes since nobody will notice what he is doing.

Instead of ignoring the misfits, we should first figure out if we can help them fit in, and if we come to the conclusion that they are hopelessly anti-social or undesirable, they need to be put on restrictions or evicted.

It is cruel to evict the misfits, but it is the only way to create a city with a pleasant social environment. We have to stop promoting the religious attitude that life should be "fair". Life cannot be fair because there is no one to supervise it or set rules for it.

It is amazing that a microscopic sperm and egg can create a person, but that process is not dependable. Rather, it results in lots of people with defective, unpleasant, and undesirable qualities. We must deal with this issue rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

If you were living among people who were covered with ticks, and if they ridiculed you as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" when you pointed out to them that they are covered with ticks, you would eventually regard them as mentally defective.

As the years passed, you might become so disgusted with them that you don't care what happens to them. For example, if you were to notice a tick-infested salesman was swindling one of your tick-infested neighbors, you may not bother calling the tick-infested police, or trying to help the tick-infested person realize that he's being swindled.

Or, if you were to see one of your tick-infested neighbors collapse from a heart attack, you may not want to be bothered calling an ambulance, or rushing over to see if there's something you can do to help him. You may instead think yourself, "Good riddance".

All throughout history there have been people complaining that the public is a horde of selfish, irrational jerks who interfere with progress. The public does not like being referred to as sheeple, or as apathetic, selfish jerks, but they created that image of themselves through their behavior.

The majority of people in every nation are causing a minority of their own citizens to become disgusted with the public. This disgust makes it easier for crime networks to thrive and find members. If you have trouble understanding this, imagine how it applies to a business, sports team, orchestra, school, or other organization.

Imagine that you just graduated from college with a teaching credential, but the only available teaching job in your area is at a school that needs a teacher for a class of mentally disturbed students, so you accept the job.

You discover that you have to teach a group of students who are constantly getting into fights with each other, raping one another, ignoring you and your homework assignments, stealing items from one another and the classroom, and vandalizing the items in the classroom. Imagine that they also occasionally steal items from you, and some of them occasionally rape you.

In the beginning, you will likely be concerned about helping them resolve their fights, and having them return the items that they steal from the classroom and from one another. However, as the months pass, you will likely find yourself becoming increasingly disappointed and disgusted with the students and your job. You might even develop a hatred for the students who rape you. And imagine that the police do nothing because the police are corrupt. You will likely develop a disgust of the legal system and the police, also.

As time passes by, you will have less concern about whether your students are learning something, and more of an interest in planning what you will do with your friends and family during the evenings and weekends. You may also spend some of your classroom time browsing the Internet for a better job rather than teaching your students.

When your students get into a fight, you may not care whether they hurt one another, and you may have so little interest in stopping the fight that you ignore it and wait for it stop on its own. When they steal items from one another, you may ignore the crime rather than help them resolve the problem.

This concept could be summarized as:

A modern organization, regardless of whether it is a business, orchestra, or nation, is a team of people, but the members who are so apathetic or selfish that they don't want to get involved with maintaining the organization are not true "team members". Rather, they are parasites who are involved with the organization only for their own selfish benefit.

The parasitic, apathetic, dishonest, and selfish people will ruin morale by causing other members to become disgusted with the organization, and that will increase the number of people who don't care about the organization.

Conversely, if you are a member of an organization in which most of the people are actively involved with maintaining the organization, and if most people are well behaved, considerate, responsible, and trustworthy, it would feel as if you are a member of a friendly, united team that is working together for the benefit of everybody. The social environment would be much more pleasant.

In that type of organization, you and the other members would be inspired to control your selfish cravings and think about what is best for the team. It would be more difficult for crime and corruption to occur because there would be so many people looking for ways to improve the organization, and who are intolerant of parasitic, criminal, and detrimental behavior.

Have you looked into my accusation that the Bollyn family has been kidnapped? The information is disorganized because I posted documents as events happened, but imagine if you and your family had been kidnapped, and that you were held captive in a public apartment building in a city full of people, but the police don't help you, and none of you neighbors care, either.

Or imagine that you are a child, and you are given an acting job in Hollywood movie, and you discover that you and other children are regularly raped and abused, but the police and citizens do not care.

Or imagine that you get a business established, and you become so successful that you start to cut into the profits of the businesses that are operated by a crime network, and they react by offering you a deal to either join their network by committing some type of crime, such as raping a child, or else they will kill your spouse or child. What would you think if you discover the police and FBI are helping that crime network, and that the citizens ridicule you as a crazy conspiracy theorist when you complain to them about the crime network?

The point I'm trying to make is that if you were to find yourself a victim of a crime network, and if you were to discover that the police are protecting the network, and that the public does not care about the issue, there may be a point at which you become disgusted with the police, government, and citizens. In fact, you may become more disgusted with the sheeple than with the criminals who abuse you!

All throughout history the military has regarded deserters as being such horrible people that they should be executed. The citizens who deliberately ignore the victims of crime networks are not much better than deserters.

We can excuse women and children from trying to stop crime networks, but the adult men don't have any excuses. However, they make excuses anyway, such as, "I can't do anything! I'm just an ordinary citizen!" In reality, everybody can do something. Each person can spread information about these issues to a friend, family member, coworker, or neighbor. Unfortunately, most of them don't want to.

As I pointed out many years ago, when Janet Jackson showed her nipple, people around the world quickly heard about it, and various photos of it, (such as the one to the right), were passed around the world in a matter of days.

By comparison, the information about how we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and other events is spreading so slowly that there are still millions of people who have not yet seen the information.

The public makes excuses to do nothing, but the reason they do nothing is because they don't want to. They want to entertain themselves, just like selfish animals.

It is idiotic to let apathetic people vote, influence the economy, and influence the future of our lives. The majority of people should be told that they don't have enough of a concern for society to be effective voters, or to influence our culture.

It might seem to be an odd statement, but most people regard most other people as being stupid and uneducated. The main reason that we regard most people as stupid and uneducated is because humans are incredibly arrogant. We are the descendants of the dominant monkeys, so we evolved powerful emotional desires to climb to the top of the social hierarchy, become the leader of the world, and regard everybody else as inferior to us. We want other people to obey our commands and show us signs of submission.

These emotional cravings are in all of us, especially men. Furthermore, the truly stupid people have the same cravings as the intelligent people. This results in the somewhat sad situation in which the truly stupid people are climbing onto pedestals and insulting other people for being stupid.

We need to keep our emotional cravings for dominance under control, but not many people are doing it. Instead, most people around the world regularly climb onto pedestals and insult other people. For just a few examples:

• Most religious people insult everybody of a different religion for being stupid, ignorant, irrational, and/or working with the devil. The religious people also insult the people who believe in genetics and evolution.

• No matter what a person's belief is about abortion, crime, politics, the presidential elections, or marijuana, he is likely to stand on a pedestal and insult everybody who has a different belief as being stupid, uneducated, irrational, or selfish.

• During the 2016 elections, many feminists were standing on pedestals and insulting the women who were voting for Trump.

• During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton said that half of the trump supporters are "a basket of deplorables", and that they are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it". She also said that "some of those folks, they are irredeemable."

• In September 2018, Joe Biden insulted the Trump supporters by saying that there were "virulent people, some of them the dregs of society".

Most of us occasionally insult other people for being stupid, uneducated, and irrational. An interesting aspect of this is that most people are of average intelligence and have an average education, and half of the population is "below-average". The fact that the people who are below-average will insult people for being stupid is evidence of how strong our arrogance is.

Those of us who truly are more intelligent and educated than the ordinary person are going to have an even stronger tendency to regard the public as stupid and uneducated because, in addition to having an emotional craving to behave in this arrogant manner, we have evidence that we truly are more intelligent and educated than the public. The combination of our arrogance and that evidence causes us to be firmly convinced that we are superior to the public.

Most organizations restrict leadership positions to the people who are more intelligent, educated, honest, responsible, and polite than the ordinary members, which causes the organization to end up with leaders who regard the majority of its members as having inferior qualities, as opposed to regarding the majority as their equals.

A democracy, however, does not promote the philosophy that voters should elect the candidates who are superior to the public. Rather, it promotes the philosophy that the average person is such a super genius that he should elect a submissive representative.

In order to create a better government, we need voters who will look for candidates who are much better than average in leadership abilities, honesty, responsibility, intelligence, education, and self-control. This will create a government in which the government officials regard the public as less intelligent, less educated, and having less self-control.

A lot of people could be described as being "helpless", or "easily exploited". Children, for example, are so trusting, submissive, stupid, and uneducated that it is very easy for an adult to exploit them. Likewise, the adults who are retarded, stupid, or trusting can easily be exploited. Animals are so stupid that it is even easier to exploit and abuse them.

We have three main options in how we react to helpless people and animals:

1) We could be helpful and provide them with leadership, advice, or protection.

2) We could do nothing, and let them live their life in whatever manner they please, even if they hurt themselves.

3) We could exploit them. We could regard them as a stepping stone to our goals, or as a tool to use for our benefit. For some examples of what people have done:

• We can swindle a trusting adult into purchasing a product or service that he doesn't need.

• We can push a child or retarded adult into letting us have sex with them.

• We can deceive a trusting woman into believing that we are in love with her, use her for sex, and then abandon her. Likewise, a woman can pretend to be attracted to a man, and then use him for free dinners and gifts, or free home repair services, and then abandon him.

• We could use food to trick an animal into coming near us, and then spray it with lighter fluid, toss a match on it, and giggle as it burns to death.

• We could boast about ourselves and/or insult the person for being less intelligent and educated in order to titillate ourselves with feelings of superiority and dominance.

How do you treat a child? Do you treat the child with respect? Or do you think to yourself, "I could easily trick this idiot into giving me money, or sex!"

The same concept applies to the planet Earth. The Earth is a dumb entity, and we have those same three options in regards to how we treat the Earth:

1) We could be helpful and put time and effort into taking care of the plants, rivers, animals, and forests.
2) We could do nothing, and let whatever happens to the Earth continue to happen.
3) We could exploit the Earth for our benefit without any concern for whether we are destroying the planet in the process.

When you encounter beautiful forest, pond, or field of flowers, do you enjoy it, appreciate it, and take care of it? Or do you look for ways to exploit the area, such as dumping your trash or toxic waste in the area, or building factories on it with no concern for the pollution, noise, odors, or visual appearance?

How do you treat the Earth? Do you enjoy it? Or do you abuse or exploit it?

Animals have no concern for other animals, the Earth, or anything else. Animals are concerned only with their own survival and reproduction. The people who are the most similar in emotional characteristics to an animal will have the least interest in treating other people and the planet with respect, and be more likely to look for ways to exploit people, animals, and the Earth.

This news article describes how rangers in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park are applying an orange dye to the roots of the wild ginseng plants. They do this because visitors to the park are constantly digging up the ginseng and taking it home with them. The orange die gets into the ginseng roots, and that will cause the roots to glow under ultraviolet light, thereby identifying the ginseng as belonging to the National Park. The officials are hoping that this will stop some of the tourists from stealing the ginseng plants. In other national parks, the rangers are struggling to stop the visitors from destroying geysers, stealing petrified rocks, feeding the wild animals, and stealing fossils.

Not everybody who visits a National Park causes trouble. The only people who take items from the park are those who are more similar in personality to an animal, or who are so dumb and/or ignorant that they don't realize that the park would eventually be stripped clean if everybody were to "take a souvenir" from the park.

Furthermore, animals - especially the males - have a strong desire to mark their territory, and so the humans who are more emotionally similar to an animal will have stronger desires to mark the national parks in some manner. For example, the photo to the right shows a portion of the graffiti that has been scratched into the sandstone of the Arches National Park in Utah.

We should regard graffiti as vandalism and "animal behavior", rather than as a type of artwork. Teenagers and adults should be able to control their craving to mark their territory, and those that do not should be regarded as being too similar to an animal to live with humans. They should be put under restrictions or evicted.

We must face the evidence that humans are monkeys, and that we differ in how similar to an animal we are. We should stop feeling sorry for people who behave like animals.

A similar problem happens at museums. Specifically, museums must protect almost every item from theft and graffiti by enclosing it within sheets of glass because there are so many people who have such low levels of self-control that they will steal and vandalize the museum items.

Another problem that museums have is that humans have a strong craving to touch items with our fingers, which can cause the items to accumulate oils, perspiration, food, and mucus.

Ants identify items with their antennae, and dogs identify items with their nose, but humans want to look at and touch items. Our craving to touch things is so strong that we have a difficult time resisting it. Only people with exceptional self-control could be allowed into a museum that didn't protect items behind sheets of glass.

Humans have a fascination with fire, but that doesn't justify letting people create fires whenever and wherever they please. Especially when they create a lot of air pollution, and/or don't clean up their mess afterwards.

Our city parks and public beaches also suffer from crude people. For some examples, some people leave trash in the area; some people toss glass bottles into the bushes, which shatter into pieces and injure animals and people; and some people start fires on the beach but do not clean up the mess afterwards.

Every society currently feels sorry for the badly behaved people, and we put a lot of labor and resources into security devices to stop them from stealing and vandalizing items, but this is not stopping the problem, or improving their animal-like behavior.

My suggestion is to change our attitudes towards badly behaved people. We must recognize that the genetic differences between us cause some people to behave more like animals than others. We need to restrict or evict the crude people rather than hope that security devices will prevent them from causing trouble, and that rehabilitation programs and punishment will improve their behavior.

If the crude people were prohibited from visiting the parks and museums, or if they were evicted from society, we would not need to waste labor and resources on fences, locks, glass enclosures, security guards, chains, and ropes, and we would be able to enjoy the parks and museums without the security devices interfering with the visual beauty of the park and displays.

Of course, this policy would require that children be prohibited from some parks and museums since we cannot expect children to follow high standards. Children are too similar in behavior to an animal, and there is nothing we can do to change that situation. However, the children are not going to suffer if some of the parks and museums are restricted to adults. Likewise, we can restrict some swimming areas to adults, as well as some restaurants, social clubs, and botanical gardens.

In our nations today, it would be impractical to set aside large numbers of parks, museums, restaurants, swimming pools, and clubs for adults only because there is so much crime that parents would be afraid to leave their children alone. However, if we create a city as I have suggested, in which criminals are evicted rather than punished, there would be very little crime.

Also, if the cities were designed as I've suggested, in which people live in apartment clusters, the hundreds of children in a cluster would be an elevator ride away from daycare centers and recreational areas. The children could get together with other children, while the adults are with other adults. Only a few adults would be needed to remain with the children. And with security cameras scattered around, parents could monitor their children, if they were concerned.

By restricting or evicting the people who steal items, molest children, vandalize property, and cause other types of trouble, the city would be dominated by people who treat one another and the Earth with respect. The city would resemble a clean, well maintained, and properly supervised office building or military base. Would you like to live in that type of city?

In a free enterprise system, people who rise to the top of the economy will be those who are best at making profit, but they are not necessarily desirable leaders. For example, consider two businesses that are competing with one another. Which of them will be the most profitable? Which is the most likely to go bankrupt?

a) The business that treats customers with respect and decency, and wants to take care of the Earth.
b) The business that exploits children, retarded people, and people who are trusting; cheats other businesses and the government; and has no concern for whether it is destroying the Earth.

The free enterprise system has no concern for how a person makes profit, and this provides an advantage to the people who are abnormally selfish, arrogant, cruel, and manipulative.

The same problem occurs in a democracy. The candidates are in a contest to attract votes, but there is no attempt to ensure that the candidacies are restricted to people who have desirable leadership characteristics. Instead, all that matters is that the candidates attract voters. This gives an advantage to the candidates who join large, wealthy crime networks, and the candidates who excel at manipulating and exploiting the voters.

An example of how people with undesirable characteristics are rising to the top of our free enterprise system can be seen in the video that was released in September 2018 of the Google executives. When business executives get together for a meeting, they normally talk about issues that are related directly to the business, such as discussing a progress report for one of their projects, or discussing what one of their competitors is doing, or discussing what type of new products to experiment with.

Two of the Google executives whining about President Trump and his supporters.

The Google executives, by comparison, spent the hour-long meeting whining about Donald Trump. They were much more concerned with political issues than their business. Why did they get involved with Google? Was it to make profit?

I suspect that because the Internet has allowed everybody in the world to bypass the Jewish controlled paper and television media, the Jews are trying to get as much control over the Internet as possible so that they can continue to manipulate, censor, and deceive us.

Google purchased YouTube, but I don't think it was to make more money. Rather, I think it was to get control over the videos on the Internet. They put Susan Wojcicki in control of YouTube, but I don't think it was because she was the most qualified person for the job. Rather, I think it was because she is a Jew who wants to help the Jewish crime network censor and manipulate us.

I would not describe the executives of Google and YouTube as "business executives". Rather, I think a more accurate description would be "soldiers of an enemy army that is trying to conquer us."

Getting back to the video of that Google company meeting, the executives were extremely cautious with their remarks, so the video is rather boring, but it shows the contempt the Google executives have for the people who voted for Trump. For example, Kent Walker suggested that supporters of Trump are motivated by “fear, xenophobia, hatred”, and Sergey Brin suggested that the voters who selected Trump were motivated by “boredom”. Since the meeting was being recorded, they were very careful about what they said, but hopefully you can figure out that they meant: "The Trump supporters are a bunch of <vulgar insults>."

As I mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, almost everybody regularly insults the public for being dumb and educated, and it is especially likely for people in leadership positions to regard themselves as superior to the public. However, just as we have three primary options in regards to how we treat a child, our leaders have those same three options in regards to how they treat the public. Specifically:

1) Our leaders could be helpful and provide leadership, advice, and guidance to the public.
2) Our leaders could do nothing and let the public do whatever they please.
3) Our leaders could exploit the public for their own selfish benefits.

The Google executives are reacting with the third option. Specifically, instead of showing an interest in providing guidance to the public, they want to find ways to censor, manipulate, deceive, and exploit the public. They regard the Trump supporters as horrible, dangerous animals to suppress, dominate, and manipulate.

For example, the CEO, Sundar Pichai, said that the company will develop artificial intelligence to counteract what an employee described as the “misinformation” that the “low-information voters” believed in. Hopefully you realize that the phrase "low-information voters" is just a politically correct phrase for some angry, vulgar insults.

Google is not developing artificial intelligence to help the public, or the nation, or the world. Rather, they are developing it to provide the Google executives with more influence over the elections.

To rephrase that concept, the Google executives have no interest in becoming team members who work with us to improve the nation. Rather, their only concern is trying to "counteract" the "low-information voters" that they despise.

I and millions of other people also regard the public as a horde of uneducated, stupid, emotional, irrational people with low self-control, so how can I justify criticizing the Google executives for that same attitude? The answer to that apparent hypocrisy is that we do not have exactly the same attitudes.

There are subtle differences in our attitudes, and the way we treat other people. For example, I have no desire to exploit the public for money, sex, labor, or anything else. Rather, I appreciate the people who are growing food, building homes, and providing us with water. I regard most people as dumb and uneducated, but I appreciate the work they are doing, and have no interest in hurting, abusing, or exploiting them.

I do not want to allow the majority of people to vote, influence the economy, determine school curriculum, or determine the future of the human race. The reason is because I don't think they have the intellectual or emotional qualities necessary to create sensible policies, or the appropriate education or attitudes.

If this is confusing you, consider how this concept applies to dentists, pilots, and nurses. The majority of us are prohibited from practicing dentistry because we haven't gone through the training programs for a dentist, and we have not passed the qualification tests. It is not insulting to say that most of us are too uneducated to be dentist. This is simply a fact.

Likewise, most of us cannot do the work of a nurse, pilot, carpenter, or machinist because of our lack of education in those subjects.

Furthermore, if we put everybody through the training courses to be a dentist or a nurse, we would discover that some people do not have the intellectual and/or emotional ability to pass the educational courses and the qualification tests. It is not insulting to say that some people do not have the mental abilities to do these jobs. It is simply stating a fact.

If we were to require the people who vote, design school curriculums, and get into government leadership positions to first take training courses that are relevant to those tasks, such as learning about human behavior and genetics, we would discover that some people cannot get through the courses, and some people cannot pass the qualification tests.

However, in the world today, no nation is setting standards for voters, government officials, or people who design school curriculum. This is allowing even the most ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and mentally disturbed people to get involved with these issues.

In the USA, our standards for voters are so low that we allow people to vote even if they are illiterate, and even if they are so senile that they are in a nursing home and don't have any idea of who is running for office.

If we were to set higher standards for voters and government officials, most people would fail to qualify because of their lack of intelligence and education. Of the millions of people who are above average in intelligence, many of them would fail simply because they don't have enough self-control to prevent their emotional cravings from biasing their decisions. For some examples of how low self-control can prevent a person from making intelligent decisions:

• If we cannot suppress our arrogance, it becomes difficult for us to look critically at ourselves and favorably at our competitors, which makes it difficult for us to improve our opinions or incorporate the beneficial ideas of other people.

• If we cannot suppress our fear of the unknown, we will be frightened to experiment with our culture, which will cause us to make excuses to do nothing, which in turn causes us to resist attempts to improve our nation.

• If we cannot control our emotions very well, we will be attracted to the theories that please us, and we will dismiss the theories that irritate us. This can cause us to be attracted to religious or other pleasant fantasies, and dismiss evolution and other unpleasant scientific theories. This in turn will cause us to develop opinions that are based on fantasies rather than scientific evidence.

Even though I regard most people as being emotionally and intellectually incapable of doing a good job of voting, or developing policies for the problems of modern society, I do not have any desire to hurt them, torture them, rape them, cheat them out of their money, exploit them, or insult them. I do not despise them, hate them, or resent them, either. Many of them are actually quite pleasant and helpful. I simply do not want them making decisions about the future of the human race.

If you're having trouble understanding this concept, notice that virtually everybody has the same attitude. For example, parents regard their children as stupid, uneducated, and badly behaved, and they do not want their children to have the authority to determine the future of the family. However, even though the parents regard their children as uneducated, irrational, and stupid, they do not want to hurt, rape, or exploit their children. Rather, they enjoy their children.

However, due to genetic variations, we are not identical. There are some parents who take advantage of the stupidity and submissiveness of their children, such as Joseph Fritzl, who abused his children, and Kathy Bush, who deliberately made her daughter sick.

There is nothing wrong with regarding a child as being stupid, uneducated, and irrational. However, society suffers from the adults who exploit the children.

Likewise, I and millions of other men regard women as less intelligent and more irrational than men, but I do not want to rape them, hurt them, torture them, insult them, or trick them out of their money. Many of us men think that it is detrimental to let women vote, influence the economy, influence the school curriculum, and determine the future of the human race, but I have no contempt, disgust, or anger towards women. Rather, I enjoy them.

Women are not harmed by men who regard them as less intelligent and more emotional. Society suffers only from the men who exploit the mental or physical weakness of women, such as by raping them, or tricking them out of their money when they need auto repairs or plumbing services.

I regard men and women as having slightly different mental, physical, and emotional characteristics, but I do not advocate hurting, exploiting, or tormenting women. Rather, I suggest that society treat men and women differently. I think this will create the most pleasant environment for both men and women.

Rather than try to be men, the women should be doing what their ancestors have done for thousands of years. I am not aware of a word to describe what women have been doing, but it is easy to show with the photo (to the right) of an experiment by Harry Harlow.

A group of men create a social environment that is similar to a monkey made of wire, and when we add women to the group, the women add fabric to the metal frame, creating a much more pleasant society.

Men can provide a society with a lot of food and material wealth, but we don't create much of a social environment. Women are not of much value as leaders, engineers, scientists, technicians, or mechanics, but they are better than men at raising children, arranging social activities, and decorating their home and campsite. They also put pressure on men to be more polite.

These concepts also apply to the way we treat animals. I regard animals as incredibly stupid, cruel, selfish, and uneducated, but I have no desire to rape the animals, spray lighter fluid on them and giggle as they burn to death, or torment them. I don't want mice, dogs, rats, or other animals living in my house, but when they are outside in their natural environment, I have no desire to hurt them or abuse them.

Likewise, when I encounter a retarded person, I have no desire to use him for sex or money, and I have no desire to hurt his feelings with insults.

Finally, when I encounter a person with a difference of opinion, I don't make any attempt to censor him, suppress him, blackmail him, murder him, or insult him with such accusations as Nazi or fascist. I may not want to waste my time discussing the issue with him, but I have no desire to stop anybody from expressing their opinions.

By comparison, the Google executives want to suppress, censor, fire, intimidate, and lie to us rather than encourage us to express our opinions. Furthermore, they regard us with contempt and disgust. They might claim to hate the Trump supporters because a lot of the Trump supporters are horrible people, but they hate people with opposing opinions simply because that is their genetic personality. Compared to someone like me, the Google executives are more likely to hate their competitors than listen to their competitors, and they have less of an interest in looking critically at themselves and their opinions.

Joseph Fritzl did not abuse his children because his children were badly behaved, or because of the environment that he grew up in. He treated his children in an abusive manner because of some subtle differences in the way his brain was designed by his DNA, and/or because he suffered from some peculiar type of brain damage.

Likewise, the Google executives may have lots of excuses for their disgusting behavior, but their behavior is the result of the genetic design of their brain. Although it is possible that some of the Google executives have had concussions or other head injuries that have resulted in abusive behavior, it doesn't matter whether their horrible behavior is due to their DNA or due to brain injuries. We should not tolerate disgusting behavior among people in leadership positions. We should replace them.

It is not the environment that is causing the Google executives to be so manipulative, deceptive, and hateful. Almost all Americans are living in a very similar social environment, and almost all Japanese are living in a similar environment, and all of the people in Austria were living in an environment similar to that of Joseph Fritzl. The badly behaved members of a nation cannot use the environment as an excuse for their bad behavior. Their terrible behavior is due to their brain making the decision to behave in that manner.

Jenny's videos are here

Have you listened to any of the people who claim to have been victims of pedophiles during their youth, such as Jenny? They suffered an unbelievable amount of torture, abuse, and cruelty, and yet they show better behavior than the Google executives, even though the Google executives had a much more pleasant childhood.

Our environment has an influence on our opinions, goals, jobs, leisure activities, language, and other culture, but it doesn't affect our personality. Each of us has a different personality because we have a different mix of genetic characteristics. Our DNA determines our level of arrogance, selfishness, self-control, and cravings for sex, babies, status, and food.

Because humans are selfish and arrogant, we can find hypocritical behavior in everybody. We are not two different species; namely, those who are hypocritical and those who are not. If we could measure hypocrisy, we would find that the majority of people are "average" in their hypocritical behavior, and a small minority is extremely hypocritical.

If we were to examine the people who are extremely hypocritical, I think we would find that most of those people would describe themselves as liberals, Marxists, socialists, communists, or anarchists, rather than conservatives or something else.

Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition for "liberal"? This dictionary describes it with phrases such as:

• open to new ideas
• tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others
• having social and political views that favour progress and reform
• having policies or views advocating individual freedom
• tolerant of other people

The definition of a liberal makes them appear to be wonderful people, but in reality, some liberals are so hypocritical that they could be used as more evidence that the human mind is nothing more than a modified monkey brain.

An example of their hypocrisy is the manner in which they reacted to the memo written by James Damore:

• Liberals should be tolerant of people who express a difference of opinion, but many of them became angry when Damore expressed a difference of opinion. They slandered him with such obnoxious insults as "misogynist" and "sexist".

• Liberals should be the most likely people to support Damore's freedom of speech but, in reality, many demanded that he be punished, fired, blacklisted, censored, or shunned.

Some liberals may respond that the reason the conservatives didn't hate Damore is because he was expressing a conservative opinion, but that is false. A lot of conservatives are religious and do not believe in genetics, so they disagree with parts of Damore's opinions. Also, there are some conservative women who disagree with Damore's opinion that women are less talented in certain fields. However, those conservatives did not react with hatred, or demand that Damore be fired.

Lots of people, including me, regularly express opinions that the conservatives don't like, but we don't find hordes of conservatives becoming enraged and insulting us as being Nazis or fascists, or demanding that we be fired, censored, or arrested.

The liberals seem to be the most likely group of people to insult a person who has a difference of opinion, and who want to suppress his freedom of speech. The liberals are also the most likely to accuse a person of being a Nazi, Fascist, bigot, sexist, racist, anti-Semite, white supremacist, or misogynist. The liberals are also the most likely to want to hurt a person who has a difference of opinion, such as by firing him, blacklisting him, or shunning him.

The liberals are also the most likely to demand that somebody with a difference of opinion be arrested for spreading hatred, sexism, homophobia, or some other nonsensical "crime".

A manager involved with firing Damore wrote a document to explain to Damore why he was being fired. Three of his sentences are:

"I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not."

Damore complained to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) about being fired, but the NLRB agreed with Google that his memo was not "free speech", and the company had a right to fire him. (The PDF file from the NLRB is here; click Advice Response Memo for it. Would you describe that document as an intelligent analysis of the situation?)

Imagine if every business behaved in the same manner as Google. For example, in September 2018, some psychologists released a report in which they studied students in school, and they came to the conclusion that the girls are better at reading and writing than the boys. Of course, since they are psychologists rather than real scientists, they do not say that it is due to genetic differences between boys and girls.

Imagine if a female employee of IBM or Sony writes a memo in which she supports that report, and imagine that a couple of the male employees react to her memo by crying. Imagine that the executives of the company fire the woman, and that they justify it by telling her exactly what the Google executives said to Damore:

"I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not."

Would the NLRB support the firing of a female employee by pointing out that some of the male employees in her company became upset with her memo, and that she was violating the company's policy that prohibited gender stereotypes?

The Google executives, and the lawyers at the NLRB, are claiming that "advancing gender stereotypes" is not protected by our laws for free speech. Rather, advancing gender stereotypes is some type of crime, but what exactly is "advancing gender stereotypes"?

Schools could use this issue as a way to test the students' ability to control their emotions and produce intelligent thoughts. The students could be given an assignment like this:

Homework assignments 1) Are any of these people "advancing gender stereotypes"? Explain your answer! a) Joe, who says that there are genetic differences in the intellectual and emotional characteristics of men and women. b) Sundar, who says that men and women have virtually identical genetic, mental characteristics, but differences in our environments are causing men and women to develop different attitudes, lives, and skills. c) Jane, who says that women are better at reading and writing than men, but she has no idea why. d) Betty, who says that men and women have identical mental characteristics. 2) Some people want employees to be fired for "advancing gender stereotypes". How should a manager, and a court, determine whether an employee is "advancing gender stereotypes" or "expressing his opinions"?

The Google executives and NLRB lawyers are claiming that "advancing gender stereotypes" is unacceptable behavior, but the phrase "advancing gender stereotypes" does not have any specific meaning. It should be illegal for a lawyer to accuse a person of unacceptable behavior or a crime that nobody can explain.

Google and the NLRB are getting away with the equivalent of firing a person for committing a crime that they made up by randomly selecting letters from the alphabet, such as saying, "We fired James Damore because he gopettied and wifvolped." This is the type of legal system I would expect to see in the South Park cartoon, not the USA. We might as well let our courts convict people for being witches, or for being possessed by the devil.

What if the Google management told their employees that criticizing the official story of the 9/11 attack was "advancing conspiracy theories", and that disagreeing with the official story of the world wars and the Holocaust was "Holocaust denial" and "promoting hatred"? Would they be allowed to fire employees who violated those policies? Do businesses have the freedom to create any company policy that they please with no regard to its effect on society?

The Google management, and thousands of other business executives and government officials, are accusing President Trump of being racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-diversity, and sexist. Therefore, imagine if all of those executives and government officials announced to their employees that anybody who supports Trump is supporting racism, homophobia, etc. Imagine thousands of businesses and government agencies firing the supporters of Trump, and justifying it with:

"I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the [company][government agency]. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, is not."

When I look at how the Jews are regularly abusing the people of the USA, Germany, Britain, and other nations, I am reminded of the photo to the right.

The majority of people are convinced that they are super geniuses, and that they have brilliant opinions on politics, crime, abortion, and economic issues, but they are actually so helpless that they are more analogous to a retarded girl who is being raped repeatedly, but who doesn't quite understand and/or care that she is being raped.

The majority of people need guidance, but they cannot select appropriate leaders. Instead, they follow anybody who gives them promises and praise. They behave like children who follow anybody who offers them candy.

Most people don't know how to select "friends". They pick their enemies to be their friends, and they turn away or ridicule the people who are trying to help them. This results in them being abused on a regular basis.

Imagine if some non-Jewish business executives told their employees that their company policy is that different races have different genetic characteristics, and that Jews are a primitive, inferior race of Neanderthals rather than humans. Imagine that one of their employees writes a memo in which he explains that he believes Jews are the superior race, and another employee writes a memo to explain his opinion that Jews are as human as everybody else.

Imagine both of those employees being fired, and the executives telling those two employees that they were fired because some employees were upset by their memos, and because they were violating company policies by "advancing racist stereotypes".

If we are going to allow the Google executives to decide what our beliefs are about men and women, why not let business executives decide our beliefs about races, religion, evolution, music, art, marijuana, and abortion? And why not also allow business executives to tell us what we are allowed to think about the extinction of the dinosaurs, and whether there is life in other solar systems?

Consider what the economy would be like if every business executive behaved like the Google executives, and for lots of issues, such as music, religion, and abortion. Imagine every business firing employees simply because of a difference of opinion. Imagine an employee being fired for “promoting harmful music stereotypes” after he is caught listening to country music instead of whatever music the company said was proper.

Then imagine that when a CEO of a business retires or is replaced, the new CEO fires a different group of people because he has different opinions.

Hopefully you can see that it would be ridiculous for a society to encourage business executives to define free speech for their employees. So why are we letting the Jews at Google do this? And why are we tolerating those disgusting lawyers at the NLRB? Those lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence and fired from their jobs, and if they turn out to be conspiring with the Google Jews or other crime network, they should be arrested.

In my documents, I have suggested we make it much easier to fire both employees and managers in order to make it easier for people to form teams in which the members get along with one another and enjoy one another. However, I am not suggesting that the people who are fired be blacklisted or tormented. Rather, I am suggesting an economy in which everybody gets their basic necessities for free, and when somebody is fired, the government and businesses help him find another job.

By comparison, the Google executives and the NLRB show no interest in helping Damore find another job. Rather, they wanted to torment him and intimidate other people. Their treatment of him should be considered as disgusting, inappropriate, and illegal.

Furthermore, consider that it is possible that Damore was working with the Google executives, and that the entire affair was a deception intended to intimidate us. This would make the Google executives even more disgusting.

The abuse of Damore is what we would expect in a communist nation. How can our economy be considered to be "free enterprise" with that type of behavior? How can the American people boast that our nation provides us with freedom?

An economy cannot be classified as "free enterprise" when crime networks are allowed to get control of the businesses, legal system, government, media, and schools, and then prevent their competitors from getting jobs and starting businesses. Free enterprise requires everybody have equal opportunities to compete in a fair manner.

The US economy may have provided people with equal opportunities in 1776, but we do not have equal opportunities today in regards to jobs or businesses. The Jewish crime network is interfering with our attempts to become journalists, business executives, lawyers, judges, government officials, and college professors.

We are not going to get rid of the crime network simply by electing Donald Trump, or by passing a few more laws. We need a large group of people to take an active role in destroying the crime network, and then we must face the evidence that the Constitution is a failure in this modern world, and that we need to replace it with a system that is less susceptible to crime networks and apathetic citizens.

The Google executives, and many other people who describe themselves as liberals and "freedom fighters", boast that they support freedom of speech, and are opposed to tyranny, fascism, Nazis, and oppression, but they are some of the most oppressive, hypocritical, selfish, neurotic, and violent of people.

Those of us who disagree with the "freedom fighters" are attacked with such meaningless insults as Nazi, sexist, fascist, and extremist. They also want to fire us from our jobs. Some liberals even promote the "punching of Nazis", and others want to put us through rehabilitation programs.

The Google executives and many other liberals are showing the attitude of an animal, or a communist dictator. Specifically, they demand blind obedience, and they attack anybody who competes with them or criticizes them. They are not interested in discussing anything, and they are not interested in competing fairly.

Are there any liberals who have been treated the way James Damore has been treated? In other words, have any conservative business executives fired an employee simply for politely stating a difference of opinion?

There have undoubtedly been lots of liberals who have been fired for bad attitudes, substandard work ethics, instigating fights, theft, vandalism, and excessive whining, but Damore was not fired for behaving badly.

It is interesting to note that the conservatives become hysterical about abortion, but they do not fire, blacklist, or punch a person who supports abortion. Abortion is legal in the USA, and most conservatives want to change that, but they want to change the laws peacefully, not by using deception, intimidation, threats of violence, false flag operations, firing people, instigating hatred, bribing people, blackmailing people, or whining.

The Google executives are not willing to have a discussion about the differences between men and women. By comparison, the conservatives are willing to have discussions about the issues they believe in, such as abortion, religion, and guns.

Of course, the conservatives don't have productive discussions since they have a strong tendency to mindlessly repeat whatever they picked up from their ancestors, and they react to criticism as if they have been attacked by a wolf, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that they allow discussions of opinions that they don't agree with.

The liberals, by comparison have no desire to allow free speech or discuss their opinions. They want to behave like a communist dictator who gives us orders, and if we disagree with them, they tend to become angry at us, or they pout and try to manipulate us into feeling sorry for them.

Although I've mentioned the rumor that the executives in the San Francisco Bay Area are blacklisting Damore, I want to mention this issue one more time to ensure that you realize how disgusting that would be. If they are blacklisting Damore, those executives should be considered violating the person's right to live. What is the difference between:

a) blacklisting a person so that he cannot get a job.
b) kidnapping a person, keeping him in a cage, and not providing him with appropriate food or water.

In both cases, the person is being prevented from taking care of himself, making a living, and providing himself with adequate food. How would you like to live in a society in which every business executive was blacklisting whoever they did not like?

In previous documents I pointed out how idiotic and destructive it is for us to release prisoners from jail with no concern for how they will get a job because most businesses do not want to hire criminals, and the end result is that many of the prisoners resort to crime in order to survive. What is the difference between releasing a prisoner with no concern for how he will find a job, and allowing businesses to blacklist employees?

Blacklisting employees simply for having a difference of opinion is not part of the philosophy of a free enterprise system. This type of behavior should be considered illegal, and the executives should be arrested for violating a person's right to make a living and feed himself.

The issue of "global warming" is another example of how the behavior of some liberals should be regarded as disgusting, intolerable, and illegal. The people who promote carbon taxes seem to be liberals, and they behave just like the Google executives. Specifically, they will not tolerate a discussion about global warming. Rather, if somebody disagrees with them, they instigate hatred of the person by insulting them with such names as "climate change denier".

A few of the more extreme liberals have advocated the firing or arresting of people who disagree with them. If Google starts firing employees who oppose global warming theories, would the NLRB support the firings?

For at least a century there have been people claiming that the Earth is suffering from "global warming", and that the coastal cities will soon be flooded. An example is this newspaper article from 1922. However, none of their predictions have come true.

After a century of failed predictions, we should consider the possibility that these climate change "experts" do not understand the Earth's climate, and that we are fools to implement the policies of such an ignorant group of people.

However, the people who promote global warming will not tolerate a difference of opinion. They want us to obey them, not discuss the issue. They want to arrest us when we disagree with them, not look at history and notice how many failed predictions they have made.

They do not encourage or advocate research programs to learn more about the Earth's climate. Rather, they are trying to suppress, intimidate, arrest, censor, and fire those of us who disagree with them.

What is the difference between arresting a "climate change denier" and arresting a "Holocaust denier"? In both cases, the legal system is being used to eliminate competing opinions, just like we would expect in a communist nation.

Many years ago I explained that if a person truly has an honest, intelligent opinion, he does not have to resort to arresting or censoring the people with a different opinion. A person with a truly honest, intelligent opinion can present it to the world and encourage everybody to analyze it. Putting an opinion out into the public for analysis is like putting a rock into an acid bath. It will allow us to determine whose opinions are the most accurate and have the best supporting evidence.

The people who try to censor competing opinions or suppress their competitors should be regarded as unacceptable for influential positions. We also ought to wonder why they are behaving in such a crude manner. Three of the possible reasons are:

1) The do not have much confidence in their opinions.
2) They are criminals who realize that they are promoting a false opinion.
3) They are emotionally so similar to an animal that they react to critics and competitors by doing the human equivalent of kicking and biting.

We should not ignore crude, detrimental behavior. Rather, we should regard it a sign that the person does not have the emotional or intellectual qualities we need for influential positions. Our leaders should be encouraging research, analyses, and discussions. They should not be trying to censor, suppress, intimidate, murder, or arrest their competitors.

We allow everybody to try to become a dentist or a pilot, but if a person doesn't show that he has the ability to do the job properly, he is forced to find some other job. When are we going to apply the same concept to people in leadership positions? We must raise standards for people in leadership positions rather than tolerate their lies, and their attempt to censor, manipulate, intimidate, and deceive us. The leaders who display undesirable characteristics should be replaced, arrested, or evicted.

Since I advocate arresting people, what is the difference between:

• Me, who advocates the arrest of the Google executives.
• The Jews who want to arrest us for Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.
• The people who want to arrest the "climate change deniers".
• The people who want to arrest James Damore for sexism or misogyny?
• The liberals who want to arrest Nazis, sexists, fascists, and racists?

The differences between us are subtle. Specifically, I have a lot of lengthy documents at my website to explain my reasoning. By comparison, the Google executives justified firing Damore by claiming that he disrupted the company, but they did not provide any evidence that he disrupted the company, or identify who he disrupted, or explain how he disrupted them. Their lack of intelligent supporting evidence is an indication that they are lying to us.

Furthermore, Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, accused Damore of "advancing harmful gender stereotypes", but he didn't explain what that means. What was harmful about his memo? And who was harmed? And how were they harmed? His remark is as idiotic as him claiming that Damore was "advancing harmful, ass-hole stereotypes".

There are only subtle differences between us, but those subtle differences determine whether we:

• Provide leadership to other people, or exploit other people.
• Discuss issues with our competitors, or look for ways to sabotage, censor, assassinate, blackmail, bribe or suppress our competitors.

All humans are arrogant, but the liberals seem to be more arrogant than the conservatives, and have more trouble looking critically at themselves, or noticing that their competitors and critics have some valuable opinions and good qualities.

Both liberals and conservatives sometimes become so angry at their critics that they become violent, but from my casual observations, the liberals are more violent as a group, and their violence is more obnoxious. They are the most likely to throw rocks, start fires, spit, vandalize, and attack defenseless people.

As a group, the conservatives are more tolerant of a difference of opinion than the liberals, and they are more polite, and less violent.

We need to start paying attention to who among us is showing the better mental qualities, and restricting leadership positions to those more advanced people.

There probably are some liberals who practice what they preach, but they are not easily noticed because they are so quiet and polite. They will not be interested in joining obnoxious protests in the street, and they will not have a tantrum when James Damore or somebody else expresses an opinion that they disagree with. They will not insult a person who has an opposing opinion as being a Nazi, fascist, misogynist, sexist, or anti-Semite.

The liberals that we notice are those who are the most obnoxious, hypocritical, and revolting, such as the Google executives, and those that run into the streets to throw rocks. Those hypocritical, obnoxious, hateful liberals will defend our freedom of speech only if we express the "correct" opinions, and they attack, suppress, censor, fire, insult, and try to hurt anybody with a different opinion. They have no desire to listen to our opinions, or discuss issues with us. They do not encourage criticism, research, or discussions. Rather, they demand obedience.

An animal reacts to competitors by trying to hit, bite, and kick them. The reason is because that is an animal's only method to solving differences of opinion. Animals do not have the intellectual ability to discuss issues, compromise on policies, or look critically at themselves. All they can do is scratch and kick.

The liberals who react to a difference of opinion with hatred, name-calling, and violence are behaving like animals. I don't think this is a coincidence. I think it is because the people who become angry, hypocritical liberals are the people who have a personality that is more similar to that of an animal.

In other words, if we could analyze our DNA, and if we could measure our similarity to an animal, we would find that the Google executives and other liberals who reacted to James Damore with hatred and tantrums have some mental characteristics that are more similar to the brains of animals than to human brains.

It is so common for people to have tantrums, yell at one another, get into fistfights, and insult each other that we don't think much about it, but we should start noticing who among us is most likely to behave in a crude manner. This would allow us to make better decisions about who to promote to a leadership position.

For example, the Communist leaders boasted about providing everybody with freedom, and being dedicated to the ordinary worker, but in reality, they were unbelievably oppressive to the people who had a difference of opinion. They did not provide freedom. Rather, they sealed their borders and treated the people as if they are animals in a cage. They would arrest anybody with a difference of opinion, and either torment them in jail, execute them, or put them through senseless "rehabilitation" programs. Their treatment of people with a difference of opinion was appalling, disgusting, and shocking.

The communist leaders, the Google executives, and the other liberals who react to competitors with anger, hatred, violence, insults, and tantrums are behaving like animals. We should restrict leadership to people who are among the best at tolerating critics and competitors.

Ideally, our leaders would let their competitors have freedom of speech, and they would be capable of having calm discussions with their critics. Rather than try to suppress competitors, they should encourage everybody to develop their talents, and to compete for leadership positions. Our leaders should inspire their competitors, not censor, suppress, insult, or hurt their competitors.

The Google executives are displaying characteristics that should be regarded as crude, animal-like, and unacceptable for leadership positions. We could even classify their behavior as "illegal" because it was a deliberate attempt to intimidate and manipulate us. They lied about why they fired Damore, so they could be described as conspiring to deceive the public. They could also be accused of encouraging the hatred of a citizen.

Our business leaders should not have the right to lie to us, intimidate us, or encourage the hatred of us. The Google executives should be arrested and replaced with people who have more advanced characteristics. Our leaders should inspire productive behavior, not abuse us.

Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, we don't have any way of controlling who rises to the top of businesses. We have to develop a more appropriate economic system so that we can replace the business leaders who display undesirable behavior.

Furthermore, our legal system will not allow the Google executives to be arrested because our legal system is under the control of Jews who want to arrest us for other reasons, such as Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, white privilege, and anti-diversity.

Rather than improve our legal system, President Trump just added another Jew to it, (Kenneth Marcus) as I mentioned at the beginning of this document, and that Jew is reopening a case of anti-Semitism. President Trump is making it easier for the Jews to arrest and intimidate their opposition.

Now that I have spent an excessive amount of time criticizing the Google executives, hopefully you will be able to see how useless it will be to do what the Jews are hoping we do, which is to arrest Hillary Clinton and a few other people, and then assume that the "swamp has been drained". Arresting a few government officials will do nothing of significance. For a few examples:

• The Google executives will continue censoring us, lying to us, and trying to intimidate us.

• The pedophiles will continue to kidnap children, and use them to blackmail government officials, policemen, entertainers, and business executives.

• The Jews will continue to lie to students about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, the world wars, and thousands of other historical events.

• The NLRB, our courts, and other government agencies will continue to be dominated by lawyers and officials who are helping the criminal Jews manipulate and abuse us.

• People like me, the Bollyn family, and who knows how many others, will continue to be pushed aside, suppressed, censored, murdered, kidnapped, or intimidated into silence.

We are not going to improve the world until we find a lot of people who can see the deception, avoid the bribery and blackmail, and destroy the entire international crime network. Then we must replace tens of thousands or millions of criminals in our businesses, governments, schools, media, and legal system. This is going to be a big effort.

However, we are going to fail if we continue to believe that the ordinary citizen should vote for the replacements of the corrupt government officials. We must either restrict voting to people who are much more responsible and intelligent, or we must have a group of responsible people screen the candidates so that no matter who the voters pick, it will be somebody who can be trusted, and who truly has leadership abilities.

According to the theory of free enterprise, the consumers will ensure that the leaders of the businesses are reputable people, but in reality, modern economic systems are too large and complex for consumers to deal with, and most people don't have the intelligence, education, or desire to analyze business executives and pass judgment on which of them is appropriate.

According to the theories of a democracy, the voters will ensure that the government officials are reputable, but in reality, most voters select deceptive, dishonest candidates.

The end result is that in our modern world, the free enterprise system and the democracies are going to be dominated by crime networks.

We need to figure out how to design an economic and government system that cannot be so easily dominated by crime networks. Unfortunately, this is going to require experimentation with our culture. Nobody can "figure out" a solution to this problem because we cannot run tests in a laboratory to determine how to do this. We have to conduct experiments on ourselves. This requires finding people with the courage to experiment with new culture.

As I have recommended in other documents, I suggest we start creating some completely new, independent, and physically isolated cities so that they can experiment with their culture without causing trouble to other cities.

I suggest providing a city with a modification of the economic and government system that a large business creates for itself. In other words, we would regard a city as a giant business, and all of the citizens as employees. However, I would suggest dividing a city into thirds to make it easier to compare the officials to one another.

Businesses do not require employees to reapply for their job every two or four years. Rather, they regularly perform job performance reviews, and they replace the employees who are not adequate. I suggest the same type of process for government officials. Specifically, instead of making the government officials go through an election process every few years, the voters instead give them job performance reviews every year or so, and the voters should be required to replace the worst performing officials.

The majority of people don't have the self control, intelligence, education, or desire to research the problems we face, discuss possible solutions, compromise on policies, or experiment with our culture. The public does not need more freedom; they need leaders who can provide them with guidance. Most people would have a much more pleasant life if their freedom had been restricted, and if they had to follow the advice of some truly competent leaders. For a few examples:

• Food

Many people do such a terrible job of selecting food that they become overweight, anorexic, diabetic, or sickly, so those people would be in better health if they had been treated as children or soldiers who had to eat meals that were designed by people with a better understanding of nutrition.

Furthermore, as I have described in other documents, if we were to design a city in which nobody has a kitchen, and everybody gets free meals from restaurants, the city would save a tremendous amount of labor and resources on kitchen, farming, and other food related chores. This would allow more engineers, technicians, and other people to work on more useful projects. It would also reduce the number of cockroaches and rats living in our homes.

• Education and jobs

A significant percentage of students are wasting an enormous amount of their time on a worthless education, and they put themselves and/or their parents into a lot of debt. Many of them refuse to pay their debts, thereby becoming a burden on society.

Those students and their families would have had a more pleasant life if the leaders of our schools, businesses, and government were working together to help the students discover their talents and find a job that is useful to society. Most people don't need more freedom in choosing their education; they need better leadership.

• Marriage, weddings, and divorces

A lot of people are making terrible decisions about marriage, such as picking a spouse that they are incompatible with, and wasting time and money on weddings and divorces. A lot of people would have had a more successful and pleasant marriage if we were living in a city in which our leaders were arranging supervised courtship activities to help us find a compatible spouse, and if our leaders were experimenting with our culture to figure out how to design weddings and divorces to be more sensible and pleasant.

If we can figure out how to help people form more stable marriages, we should also reduce the number of venereal diseases, which were increasing from 2013 to 2017. Most people don't need more freedom in choosing a spouse; they need better leadership.

Some people might complain that it would be insulting to live in a city in which our leaders are treating the ordinary people as children who need guidance, but it is insulting only if you want it to be insulting. Life is however you want to look at it.

Being treated like a child is miserable only if the person in the role of a parent is incompetent, manipulative, neurotic, violent, or abusive. If we were to put the Google executives in the role of a parent, for example, then of course we would suffer. However, with appropriate parents, a child will benefit tremendously by letting his parents make the difficult decisions, and by following their advice.

If we can figure out how to provide ourselves with honest, responsible, intelligent leaders who have a true concern for society, then we will benefit from their advice.

However, we are not going to be able to provide ourselves with high quality leaders as long as we allow our leaders to be secretive. We need to control our paranoia of being observed. We need to eliminate secrecy so that we can keep track of what everybody is doing and pass judgment on their mental qualities. We need to restore the openness that our prehistoric ancestors had. We need to know who is living among us, and what they are doing. Our ancestors did not suffer from their lack of secrecy. Rather, it gave them more intimate relationships.

We must also be able to give job performance reviews to our leaders, and they must be held accountable for their actions. In the USA, there is a debate about whether a president can be indicted for crimes, but there should be no debate. Everybody in government should be accountable for his crimes, not allowed to bypass the laws.

There is a lot of corruption in this world, and although we can say the "criminals" are the source of the corruption, we have to face the fact that part of the corruption is because the public is creating disgust of themselves with their apathy, selfishness, and crude behavior.

In order to truly create a better society, we have to do more than merely get the criminals out of leadership positions; we must also raise standards for the public. The public has to be a united team, rather than a horde of selfish, parasitic, apathetic, irrational animals who speak different languages, ignore one another, and ignore crime.

If you have trouble understanding this concept, consider how it applies to a sports team, orchestra, business, or school. If a business was advertising a job for a manager, and if all of the employees of this business were extremely violent, neurotic people who were constantly fighting, raping, and stealing from one another, would you be interested in applying for the job?

This concept also applies to single men and women. Would you be interested in getting married to a person who has a history of murdering his friends for money, or if he was neurotic, violent, or psychotic?

An unmarried person with undesirable behavior is not going to attract a desirable spouse. Likewise, a business that is dominated by undesirable employees is not going to attract a desirable manager. This concept applies to a city and nation, also. A city is not going to attract quality leaders unless the people in the city are respectable.

I recommend that we start experimenting with some new cities, but we must restrict immigration to those cities. We have to set high standards for both the people in leadership positions and the public. We cannot simply raise standards for the leaders. The public must become a desirable group of people. They must be a team that the people in the leadership positions enjoy working with.

The photo below shows an automotive-free plaza in Raffles City, in China. Although it's only a small section of the city, it is significantly more pleasant than the ugly streets of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.