An expression that I have repeatedly heard ever since I got involved with exposing the lies about the 9/11 attack is that "we get the most flak when we are over the target". However, this is just another deception technique. If a group of people believe that concept, then their enemy can fool them simply by attacking them when they go in the wrong direction.

A more sensible concept to follow is "Who has the Means, Motive, and Opportunity?"

Every military in the world has the means to kill any of us, and there are military personnel scattered everywhere in the world, so they have the opportunity to kill almost any of us, but do they have the motive to kill any of us? No, and the motive is the most important concept that is being ignored by the people who are investigating the Kirk murder.

Every police detective should be aware that a person needs a motive to commit a crime, and the more serious the crime, the stronger his motive must be.

Some people have killed people that they selected at random, which seems to be a murder without a motive, but they had motives. For example, some were lonely misfits who became angry at society or women, and some had extreme mental disorders and were hoping that a risky crime would bring them some pleasure.

There have also been people who killed someone at random because they wanted to join a crime gang, and that was the initiation ritual.

Kirk was not killed by a lunatic or for a gang initiation. He was killed by a group of people, and all of those people must have had a strong motive to be willing to get together to plan, arrange, and commit such a serious crime.

Therefore, the people investigating his murder should be trying to figure out who was so angry or frightened by Kirk that they would be willing to murder him.

Who among us would have the motive to kill Kirk? It would be the people who regarded Kirk as their enemy, which would be the people that Kirk was starting to complain about and fight with. Specifically, certain Jews, such as Benjamin Netanyahu, and the TPUSA officials who were cheating the organization.

Kirk also seemed to be angry about the secrecy with Jeffrey Epstein, which gave a motive to the government officials, FBI officials, police officials, professors, journalists, business executives, religious leaders, and other people who are trying to hide the information about Epstein.

Some people claim that Erika Kirk was involved with child trafficking, and that Charlie was becoming suspicious of her, and if that turns out to be true, then she, her family, and her criminal friends would have a motive.

The people investigating the Kirk murder should be focusing on Jews and pedophiles, but some of them are – as of January 2026 – focusing their attention on the US military, and just a few individuals, such as Dan Flood or Brian Harpole.

No military would be so afraid of an individual man, such as Charlie Kirk, that they would want to arrange for his murder. There is not even a business that would be so afraid of an individual man that they would arrange for his murder.

There is only one organization that would be so terrified of an individual man that they would put a lot of time and effort into arranging his murder. That organization would also be terrified of individual women and children, and an elderly person who is dying in a hospital.

Help! Kirk will destroy us!

That organization is a crime network, and the reason they are terrified of individuals is because a crime network can be destroyed with something that an individual is capable of providing, and which nobody can protect themselves from. Specifically, the truth.

A crime network depends upon secrecy, lies, deception, bribery, intimidation, and blackmail. Therefore, a crime network can be destroyed by one person who discloses the truth about them. One person can provide enough evidence to have them arrested. One person can expose their operation, identify their leaders, and cause the public to become angry at them.

A crime network is especially fearful of its members because they have truthful information that nobody outside of the crime network would be able to figure out. The leaders of a crime network have to treat their members as potential enemies, rather than as friends and team members. That results in a crime network having a miserable social environment because all of the criminals are suspicious of one another.

An example of how they fear their own members is when Jeffrey Epstein got arrested, and Jews and pedophiles around the world became frightened that he would expose information about them. Crime networks will often try to kill their members who are in hospitals and jails.

Another example of how their own members can cause trouble for them is when Vicki Polin exposed her family and relatives for their involvement with pedophilia and sacrifices of babies.

Criminals are terrified of the truth, but "the military" is not afraid of any individual person, not even the individuals who have a lot of guns in their home.

Furthermore, the men and women who volunteer to be fighters in military have more courage than the average person, so none of them would be afraid to defend themselves from an individual man by themselves.

It is important to understand this concept because the people who blame "the military" for Kirk's murder are trying to convince us that a giant organization of unusually courageous men and women were so afraid of Charlie Kirk that they would conduct a complex murder of him. In reality, if the military considered Kirk a threat to the military or the nation, they would calmly send some of their personnel to arrest him. They would not react with hysteria or fear.

The people investigating the Kirk murder should focus on Jews, TPUSA officials, and pedophiles, not the US military. It is possible that some non-Jewish military personnel at Fort Huachuca were involved with Kirk's murder, but it is unlikely that they were the masterminds. It is more likely that they were tricked, intimidated, or blackmailed into participating.

It might seem impossible to trick somebody into joining in on a murder, but there have already been women, such as this one, who have been convicted of tricking a man into killing her husband or boyfriend by fooling him into believing that he would be a hero for killing an abusive husband or a pedophile. A more bizarre deception was conducted by this woman.

We would be fools to assume that those two women were the only people in the history of the human race to trick a man into committing a crime. Furthermore, we would be fools to assume that crime networks and the Mossad never use that type of trick.

One of the best examples of how people can be tricked into murder and destruction is how Americans were tricked into attacking Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of the 9/11 attack, and how dozens of nations attacked one another during the world wars.

It is also important to note that, as I mentioned in other files, (such as here), the Jews seemed to have fooled thousands of government officials, professors, scientists, business executives, and other people, into joining the New World Order by deceiving them into believing that they were joining a group of educated, intelligent people to create a better world.

It should be obvious that the only people who would be so terrified of Charlie Kirk that they would have the motive to go to the trouble and expense of murdering him in a complex manner are Jews, and the TPUSA officials who were involved with cheating the organization, and the people who want the Epstein information to remain a secret.

“Israel did not kill Kirk!”

If Jews were not involved with Kirk's murder, then Netanyahu could have proudly boasted that we should investigate the murder so that we can discover for ourselves that the Jews are innocent.

Instead, he and other Jews reacted in a similar manner as Jews react to investigations of the Holocaust and the 9/11 attack.

When I was exposing the 9/11 attack, I was never harassed, feared, hated, or insulted by Mexicans, Chinese, Somalians, Germans, Belgians, or Russians. It was only Jews, and the people that the Jews had blackmailed, deceived, or bribed.

Furthermore, the Jews were constantly trying to convince everybody that the 9/11 attack was the result of the Muslims, the Vatican, the Bush family, the Rockefellers, the CIA, the US military, the British Royal family, or some other non-Jewish group.

The lesson that everyone should learn from 9/11 is that the Jews are going to try their best to divert our attention away from Jews.

For example, Mitch Snow released information about Fort Huachuca, so we should wonder if Jews arranged for him to provide that information in order to divert our attention to the US military and Brian Harpole, and away from Israel. We should wonder if Mitch Snow has some connection to Jews, Epstein, or TPUSA officials.

Likewise, some people recently released information about Dan Flood, so we should investigate who those people are, and whether they are trying to trick us into focusing on Dan Flood so that we ignore the more important people and issues, such as Erika Kirk, sex trafficking, and Jeffrey Epstein.

Several months ago a few people posted messages about Hunter Kozak (who "was approved by Kirk's team"), such as this, and then this, and then this, so the Jews might be afraid that Candace Owens and others will start investigating Kozak, and other people who were near Kirk when he was assassinated, including Kirk's security team, and the person who put the microphone bomb on Kirk. They might also be worried that Owens will investigate the explosion of the Accurate Energetic Systems factory.

On 20 January 2026, Dave Rubin posted this message in which he claimed:

Candace Owens responded that he is lying, and she provided more details in her video. This brings up two important lessons that I learned when I was exposing the lies about the 9/11 attack:

1)		Jews never admit to lying The Jews will repeat a lie even if it is been fully exposed. They never admit to lying because that would ruin their reputation, and it would cause people to wonder how many other Jews are lying. However, by repeating the lies over and over, they can cause some people to assume the Jew is merely making an honest mistake, and it can cause people to be confused about who to trust, and it can cause the conspiracy theories to become so confusing that some people become overwhelmed and ignore them.
2)		Jews try to manipulate us It is possible that Owens made a few critical remarks about Charlie at Rubin's house because, at that time, she was starting to realize that Jews were causing trouble for the world, but Charlie was still so naive that he was insulting people who criticized Jews or Israel. However, if Owens complained about Charlie, I suspect that Dave Rubin, or some other Jew, encouraged Owens to complain about Charlie. When I was exposing the 9/11 attack, I noticed more than once that many Jews try to manipulate me and other people into saying, believing, or doing something, and they are especially interested in manipulating us into doing something embarrassing or illegal so that they can blackmail us or ruin our reputation. They also look for opportunities to incite fights between us and other people. There have been so many people during the past few centuries who have been complaining about being manipulated by Jews during retail sales that the English language has an expression for it: "Jew me down". There is no corresponding expression for other groups of people. For example, there is no Chinese me down, Irish me down, Catholic me down, or bald men me down. The Jews start the process of manipulating us by pushing us into doing something harmless. For example, Anthony Hilder asked me if he could include a brief interview of me in his video about 9/11, and I agreed, so he and his crew traveled to Goleta, and we met in the city park near my house. While he was filming, he told me to show some more emotion and say something. I can't remember exactly what he wanted me to say or do, but it was something I didn't feel like saying or doing. It was probably something like show anger while condemning the CIA, George Bush, or the military industrial complex. Whatever he asked me to do, I didn't do what he wanted, but the point I want to make is that he did not truly want to include a brief interview of me in his video. Rather, he wanted to include an interview of me condemning some group other than Israel in order to divert attention away from Israel. If I had done what he had wanted, then he probably would have contacted me again and encouraged me to do something a bit more extreme. He probably would also have told other Jews about his success with me, and some of them would have contacted me and pushed me into doing something. They would have praised me when I did what they wanted, and pushed me into doing even more extreme things, until they had succeeded in blackmailing me or ruining my reputation. If I had been suffering from financial problems, they probably would have offered money if I was willing to help them, and initially it would be something harmless, but become increasingly illegal as time went on. Or if I had cravings to be a famous Hollywood celebrity or a billionaire, they probably would have offered assistance in achieving those goals.

My experiences with the Jews has taught me that we are fools to trust them. I will no longer accept food or drinks from them, or trust them in my house, or visit them at their homes.

Some people claim that when William Casey was the CIA Director, he said:

Even if he never made that remark, that is the attitude of the people who have gotten into leadership positions in every nation during the past few decades. We have become dominated by people who routinely lie to us; censor us; arrange false flag operations to manipulate us; alter historical documents and news reports to fool us into believing their propaganda; look for opportunities to justify firing or arresting us when we criticize or disagree with them; and insult us as "crazy conspiracy theorists" when we expose the truth.

Who would boast about deceiving somebody? Who would want to spend his life trying to deceive people?

A criminal is the only person who would boast about deceiving a child into giving him money or sex; deceiving an elderly person into rewriting his will; tricking people into donating money for a fraudulent charity; or deceiving the police into believing that he is innocent of a crime he committed.

A criminal doesn't respect a person who is trusting. Rather, a criminal considers such a person to be gullible, foolish, or stupid. They regard such a person as an opportunity for them to get money, sex, food, a job, or some other benefit.

If the USA had appropriate people in leadership positions, they would never boast about deceiving us. Instead, they would want to provide us with intelligent guidance and knowledge. They would want to boast that the American people are the most educated people in the world, and that we have the most accurate historical information, and the most honest in a respectable government officials, business executives, journalists, and professors.

It doesn't require much talent to deceive somebody, especially a person who is very trusting, such as a child. However, it requires talent and effort to provide a child with useful skills or knowledge, and it requires even more talent to improve the knowledge or skills of an adult.

We should restrict leadership positions to people who have the ability to provide us with useful guidance and knowledge, not people who can deceive us. Unfortunately, our mind has two characteristics that make it very difficult for us to select appropriate leaders:

1)		We are extremely arrogant. Each of us is convinced that we are such super educated, super geniuses that we should be in control of the world. We believe that we know more than everybody else about raising children, crime, alcohol, marijuana, schools, religion, Donald Trump, and every other issue, including the creation of the universe. All of us have emotions that make us feel superior to everybody around us. Our extreme arrogance causes us to believe that we should be the leader of the world, and that everybody should follow our advice, respect us, and obey us. We experience unpleasant emotional feelings when somebody criticizes us, disagrees with us, or doesn't want to listen to us. Our arrogance makes it impossible for most people to become useful as voters. Our arrogance causes us to look for a candidate who has the "correct" beliefs, so we look for somebody who has the same opinions that we do. Unfortunately, when millions of voters look for a candidate who believes what they believe, the only candidates who will get elected are the criminals who make vague remarks that each voter interprets as he pleases. Those candidates boast about fooling the "stupid and gullible" voters. Those candidates don't have any respect for the voters. They are just criminals who exploit our animal characteristics. Another example of our arrogance is Charlie Kirk's attitude of "Prove Me Wrong". A more beneficial attitude is "Let's Learn From One Another", or "Tell me what you have discovered", or "Provide Me With Constructive Criticism". The "Prove Me Wrong" attitude is the attitude of a man who regards himself as perfect. It is not the attitude of a scientist who is is asking for verification of his theory, or the attitude of an athlete who is asking his coach for constructive criticism, or the attitude of a group of people who have become lost in a forest and are asking for a discussion on what they should do.
2)		We do not want to select leaders. Animals have no desire to select their leaders, give job performance reviews to their leaders, or replace the leaders that are incompetent or abusive. Rather, they passively watch the males fight for dominance, and they assume that the best fighter is the best leader. Humans behave just like the stupid animals. We become submissive to whoever is higher in the social hierarchy, and we never pass judgment on their value. Most people in every nation will bow before kings and queens, Hollywood celebrities, government officials, and other people who are high in the hierarchy. We will never provide ourselves with good leadership unless we can restrict voting to people who can control their craving to be submissive to their leaders, and who can push themselves into passing judgment on the value of their leaders.

Our stupid, animal emotions are impressed by a candidate who agrees with us and gives us praise, but we should be impressed by candidates who teach us things we didn't know. We should be impressed by candidates who can improve our school system, economy, cities, social affairs, and other culture.

People who are truly talented will impress us with their abilities to improve our lives. Criminals, by comparison, have so little talent that they can only boast about blackmailing people, burglarizing houses, murdering people, fooling people into donating money to them, and deceiving people into purchasing worthless products.

The people who boast about deceiving us, or about being successful at any other type of crime, should be regarded as dangerous and unacceptable. They should be removed from society, not allowed into influential positions.

On 1 January 2026, the Charlie Kirk website posted this news article about the home of Space Force officers being vandalized and burned.

That website posts only a few news articles each week, but they decided to post an article about that particular arson, even though almost no other news site in the world reported the incident. The Post Millennial, a Canadian organization, also posted a report about it on 1 January, and they posted a second article about it on 2 January.

There are thousands of crimes being committed every day in the USA, and there lots of other news events, so why did Turning Point (and The Post Millennial) pick that particular arson to be one of the very few events that they publicize as "news"? How did they even know about that arson when almost no other news agency reported it? The Daily Mail reported the arson on 3 January, but there have not been many other news reports about it.

Were the people involved with Charlie Kirk's murder responsible for that arson, and did they give it publicity in an attempt to intimidate US military officials?

Candace Owens is not frightening to a "normal" person, but during the past few years, and especially during 2025, she has been terrifying an increasingly large number of Jews, TPUSA officials, journalists, and some government officials of France, Israel, and the USA, simply by discussing her opinions about such issues as Brigitte Macron, the attack of the USS Liberty, and the Charlie Kirk murder.

Those frightened people have been trying to stop her from spreading her opinions by insulting her, threatening her with lawsuits, and trying to cause financial troubles for her, but all of their attempts have been failures.

Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and many other people are also criticized as anti-Semites or conspiracy theorists, but the criticism that they get is to give them publicity and bring pity to Jews, rather than to intimidate them into silence and ruin their reputation. By comparison, the people attacking Candace Owens are displaying such extreme fear, paranoia, and terror that their attacks on her could be described as psychotic.

I suspect that the people who are attacking Owens are wishing that they could murder her, but after their assassination of Charlie Kirk backfired in a spectacular manner, they are probably afraid to do that.

As of January 2026, they seem to be putting their effort into convincing her to promote stupid theories, and they are having some success. For example, in her video from 14 January 2026 she promotes "Project Looking Glass". That particular propaganda was such a failure when it first came out more than a decade ago that one of the few Internet sites that has information about it is reddit.com, such as this description:


I was a child during the 1960s, and there were lots of adults who believed in clairvoyance, telepathy, Ouija boards, remote viewing, astrology, psychics, ghosts, and paranormal events. There were individual people, schools, and government agencies conducting experiments with some of those concepts. For example, in 1977 the Army began the Stargate Project, primarily to experiment with remote viewing. In 1995, UC Davis published this document that claims that the experiments with psychic spying have credible evidence, and there are still lots of businesses selling Zener cards for experiments for "extrasensory perception" (ESP). However, I cannot find any sensible evidence that there was a Project Looking Glass.

To complicate this issue, the US government may have actually been involved with something similar to Project Looking Glass. As I pointed out in this document, it appears that the US government was fooled into trying to simulate an alien aircraft, undoubtedly so that the Jews could fake an alien invasion, or an alien contact. Perhaps Area 51 is where they built and tested those aircraft.

The US government has admitted that they were conducting MKUltra experiments, and with all of the evidence and accusations that many government officials are involved with pedophilia, human trafficking, and murder, we ought to consider that some government agencies were conducting experiments on children that they are refusing to admit to.

For example, some people have claimed that streetlights turned off as they walked by them, and Candace Owen seems to believe them. Although some of those people are likely to be liars, some of them might be telling the truth. However, the street lights would not have been turning on and off because of supernatural phenomenon. Rather, it would be because some government officials had arranged for certain street lights to be under their control. As the children walked by the lights, the government agents would turn the lights off and on in an attempt to manipulate the children into believing that something supernatural was occurring because they were special children.

One of the issues that we have to keep in mind when we try to understand what is going on in the world is that our nations have become dominated by a crime network. We should consider that our government officials have been secretly conducting experiments for a variety of reasons.

The TV program Mission Impossible might have been based on some of the experiments that the government was conducting, similar to how the TV show The Invaders was based of the Zionist plot to send Russian Jews into other nations to get control of them.

Although Project Looking Glass might have been a real project, it is absurd to believe that somebody can predict the future, but Candace Owens has been so convinced that the project was a success that she promoted it in her video for 14 Jan 2026, and on her X and Facebook pages.

Within hours of her promoting it, journalists began insulted her, such as this news report that described her podcast as: "might be the nuttiest yet".

There have been, and still are, so many people conducting experiments on paranormal issues that it is sensible for Candace Owens to wonder if somebody proposed Project Looking Glass to the US government, and for her to wonder if the government authorized such a project, but it is absurd for her to say that the project was successful, and that our government now knows how to predict the future.

They can now attack the message, rather than the messenger

During the past few years, the journalists were insulting Owens because they could not disprove what she said. For example, it was impossible for them to dispute her accusations that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, and that the moon landings were a hoax, and that Bridget Macron is a man. Their only response was to attack the messenger.

However, now that she is promoting the Looking Glass Project, they can ridicule her message. That allows them to imply that she can't think very well, and that we should disregard everything she says because all of her opinions are likely to be just as stupid.

Owens should also notice that although some people are criticizing her for promoting the Looking Glass Project, she is getting a lot of praise for it. She should notice that this is the opposite of what happened when she accused some of the TPUSA officials of lying, or when she mentioned their connection to Fort Huachuca.

There is a subtle but important difference between the reactions she is getting in response to the Looking Glass Project, and the hysterical, hateful, and extremely angry reactions to her remarks about the Kirk assassination.

She should notice that when we do something stupid, obnoxious, illegal, dangerous, or embarrassing, the criminals ignore it, or praise us for it, because they want us to ruin our reputation.

Owens also seems to believe that the Y2K hysteria was the result of people who were truly afraid that the computer software would cause chaos as the date changed to 1 January 2000. My opinion is that the Jews were creating that fear because they were planning to conduct a false flag operation during that evening. Specifically, they wanted to shut down electric power plants, cause some airplanes to crash, shut down some banking operations, and cause other problems. However, they didn't have enough support, and so their operation failed.

I also think that the Jews decided to use the end of the Mayan calendar to stage a false flag operation in 2012. However, by 2012, there were too many people who were aware of what the Jews were doing, so that operation failed.

Owens also seems to believe in the Mandela Effect (I mentioned this years ago here). The Mandela Effect, and optical illusions, are evidence that we have an ape brain that interprets the world, rather than accurately analyzes it, as a computer would do.

For example, the image to the right claims that 70% of us cannot find the mistake, and clicking the link takes you to a site that claims there are five mistakes.

All human minds are similar, so we must expect different people to make similar assumptions when provided with the same information. This is not magic, supernatural, or a "Mandela Effect". Likewise, all cats react in a similar manner when exposed to the same information.

However, the people who don't want to believe that the human brain is a modified ape brain will instead interpret our similar thoughts as being due to something magical, such as clairvoyance, telepathy, the Mandela Effect, or multiple, overlapping universes.

Although the journalists can now ridicule Candace Owens for promoting Project Looking Glass and the Mandela Effect, I doubt that they will hurt her reputation because government agencies, psychologists, and universities have been conducting lots of experiments that many people regard as stupid or dangerous.

Owens has been very cautious about accusing people of lying about Kirk's murder, but she is not showing any caution about promoting Project Looking Glass.

It would be more sensible for Owens to discuss the accusation that Michelle Obama is a man (another photo here), or that Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966, or that Anne Frank's diary is a fraud. There is more evidence to believe those theories than there is to believe that the CIA or US military can predict the future.

Owens should get some useful advice from her husband and friends, but they are either too mentally incompetent, or they are her handlers and trying to deceive her, in which case they might eventually become so frustrated with trying to control her that they arrange for her to die, such as with cancer, a blood clot, or an automobile accident.

Are the threats of lawsuits serious?

In January 2026, TPUSA sent a document to Zack De Gregorio with the title "Demand to Cease and Desist Defamatory Comments", and then they sent Candace Owens a similiar letter.

However, the "defamatory" comments that the lawyers are complaining about are so vague and idiotic that we ought to wonder if they sent those documents to cause Owens and De Gregorio to waste their time responding to them, or to divert our attention away from Israel, Jews, child trafficking, and Epstein. Or maybe it is an attempt to intimidate them into silence, similar to the threat the French government sent to Owens for her claim that Bridget Macron is a man.

The Cease and Desist demands, and the threats of lawsuits, are more examples of how worthless the American legal system is. Our legal system allows us to threaten and file idiotic lawsuits simply to harass other people and businesses, and this freedom does does nothing to stop crime or corruption. Unfortunately, we can't expect our government officials to improve our legal system because they benefit from it. And we can't expect the American voters to give us better leaders.

Conspiracy Girl

Incidentally, Owens refers to herself as "conspiracy girlie", and has merchandise with that expression. Also, she has recently been insulted for refusing to pay royalty fees to Universal Music Group for a few seconds of a song by Kanye West.

My suggestion is that she refer to herself as a "Conspiracy Girl", and create a modification of Madonna's song for her introduction, such as:

Conspiracy Girl

Megyn Kelly has recently shown some independence, so now some of the Israeli damage control agents, such as Ian Cheong and Dan Freemont, have started attacking her, also.

The people who are continuously posting angry and insulting remarks about Owens, Kelly, and other people who exposes Isreali crimes are identifying themselves as working with the Isrealis. They are not "normal" people who occasionally post a sensible question or disagreement. They are people who seem to have a full-time job posting insults, propaganda, and hatred. Do the police understand this concept?

Both Owens and Kelly are still so naive (or afraid to be honest) that they are ignoring a lot of important issues, and they are praising some extremely suspicious Jews, such as Jack Posobiec, but the Jews are terrified of both of them because an individual person can cause tremendous damage to a crime network even if he has been deceived into promoting some of their propaganda and criminals.

Incidentally, how is it possible that Owens and Kelly don't know of Isaac Kappy and his accusation that Jack Posobiec, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer, Steven Spielberg, Oprah, and many others are involved with pedophilia and child trafficking? Kappy was also suspicious of Ben Shapiro.

Here is a brief excerpt of that video in which Kappy makes such remarks as :

People who make a living by investigating issues, such as Tucker Carlson, Piers Morgan, and Megyn Kelly, should be more aware of Isaac Kappy, and other people and issues, than you and me. Those journalists spend dozens of hours every week investigating and discussing issues, but they claim to be more ignorant about the world than the ordinary people who spend only a few hours a week looking on the Internet. For example, at this point in an interview with Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly described Jack Posobiec as:

	•		a great guy, who is a dear friend of Charlie's
	•		I really like him and respect him
	•		I've really come to adore this guy

It is easy to understand why some journalists, government officials, business executives, professors, and other people can be intimidated into remaining silent about Kappy and other issues, and promote people like Jack Posobiec. Specifically, they are probably aware that a lot of people have already been murdered for refusing to follow orders from the Jews.

Dirk Benedict said that there were "hundreds of murders" in Hollywood (audio is here), and it is unlikely that he is the only person who is aware of those secretive murders. There might be thousands of people in our government, businesses, universities, and other organizations who realize that Jews are murdering people on a routine basis, and that the Jews are protected by police and FBI officials.

If Megyn Kelly were to show some courage and expose what she knows, she would likely be killed, just like Kappy, Andrew Breitbart, Charlie Kirk, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Jim Morrison, and hundreds of other people.

However, if she and hundreds of other frightened people would expose the crime network at the same time, the criminals could not stop them.

Blackmail and threats are useful only if the victims are frightened into submission. If the victims could identify other victims, and plan a rebellion without the crime network noticing, then they could rebel at the same time, and destroy the network. Unfortunately, it would be difficult for the victims, who are scattered around the world almost at random, to make such plans without the Israelis noticing what they are doing.

This concept is also true of jurors who are intimidated by dishonest government officials. For example, if only one of the jurors of Christopher Bollyn's trial had announced that he had been intimidated by the FBI, he or one of his family members could have been killed in an automobile accident or suicide without anybody becoming suspicious. However, if all of the jurors had joined together to make such an announcement, they would have been able to expose the crime.

Unfortunately, most people are courageous only in their fantasies. In real life, most people are very sheeplike, cowardly, and easily intimidated. Most people can be intimidated simply by accusing them of something nonsensical, such as anti-Semitism or sexism.

Furthermore, most people cannot form a useful team because they cannot select appropriate leaders. This results in people allowing their organization to become dominated by crime gangs, and by arrogant, aggressive men who have psychotic cravings for status.

By exploiting our animal characteristics, a small crime network can intimidate and manipulate enormous numbers of people.

Some people are insulting Candace Owens for her remark that she felt as if she was an alien from another planet, and that Charlie Kirk felt that he was a "time traveler". I have emphasized many times that we should investigate unusual people, not ignore or insult them. We should try to understand why some people feel like misfits, and how we can reduce that problem.

I don't know Candace Owens, and have never spoke to her, but her videos give me the impression that she is a very unusual woman. In addition to having more courage than most men in regards to confronting and exposing criminals and liars, she has an exceptional ability to listen to and reply to insults.

The children who can calmly listen to and learn from criticism are likely to feel uncomfortable around the majority of people because most people react like animals. For example, Trump reacts to criticism and insults with anger, revenge, insults, sarcasm, and hatred. Many other people react by crying, yelling, pouting, whining, fist fights, or accusations of sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, or bullying.

I was in 11th grade when it occurred to me that I am unusual for enjoying criticism. I regarded it as a different perspective of myself, and that I can learn from it. I also seemed to be much better at listening to different opinions than most people.

One of images that would appear in my mind when I was around other people is that most people are made of glass, and will shatter into pieces if I tell them something they don't like. As a result, I rarely expressed my true thoughts, and often remained silent or made some stupid remarks.

Now that I have a better understanding of how humans evolved from apes, I regard most people as being similar to our prehistoric ancestors rather than like pieces of glass.

There is such a large percentage of the population that cannot handle criticism or conflicting opinions that every culture has developed the attitude that we should lie to other people in order to avoid upsetting them. We consider those type of lies as "white lies", or as "being polite", or as "manners".

If everybody in the world could handle criticism and insults as well as Candace Owens, our culture would be noticeably different. We would consider the people who lie to us, or who tell us what they think we want to hear, as being deceptive or dishonest. We would be able to discuss our opinions, and make critical remarks, without fear that the other person will have a tantrum, or start crying, or accuse us of being a bully.

A lot of men believe that they are courageous because they can get into a fist fight, but that is violent behavior, not courage. That is not the same as a man who can calmly listen to and learn from constructive criticism, or a man who can have a clam and serious conversation about an issue that conflicts with his established beliefs.

Imagine living in a world in which the men were capable of having discussions about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, drug abuse, abortion, and religion, without temper tantrums, whining, yelling, running away, or insults.

With men like that, someone would be able to point out that our policy of arresting drug dealers has done nothing to stop drug abuse in any nation at any time in human history, and therefore, we should experiment with a different policy. Imagine living among men who can listen to and discuss that remark, rather than ignore it or react with anger. Those type of men would allow us to learn about ourselves, experiment with our culture.

Every culture has a tendency to ignore or insult the people who are misfits, but not all misfits are detrimental or defective. Some people become misfits because they have one or more superior characteristics, such as a greater interest in exploring the world, or more courage, or by a better ability to deal with reality, or a better ability to deal with criticism, or superior intelligence, or a greater interest in society and less selfishness, or a stronger desire to do something about problems rather than hide from them.

The red arrow at the bottom of the image below is pointing to the logo for The Charlie Kirk Show. It is a simplified American flag with five red stripes and a solid blue rectangle.

By changing the red stripes and the blue rectangle to white, and by changing the white stripes to blue,creates two short blue stripes, and too long blue stripes (the four red arrows point to them). Is this just a coincidence? Or did the Jews modify his logo to show one another that they are in control of his organization?

As I have pointed out in other documents, (such as here), the Jews frequently manipulate logos to show that they control the organization, and to insert pedophile symbols (here and here).

For two new examples of this behavior: