Furthermore, we should consider the possibility that this dam broke as a result of sabotage by the same network of criminal Jews that is responsible for the 9/11 attack.
The full-sized photo is here.

If the idea of Jews committing crimes is new to you, here are three other suspicious accidents.
• oil wells have had mysterious accidents
• bridges have collapsed mysteriously
• the levees in New Orleans collapsed mysteriously

The problems of the world, such as crime, poverty, hunger, divorce, war, corruption, rape, pedophilia, and alcoholism cannot be solved with physical technology. (I discuss this in Part 3 of my Dumbing Down series.) Unfortunately, almost nobody understands this concept, and so most people assume that they can solve human social problems with physical items, such as ending hunger with bags of rice, or stopping crime with security devices.

Venezuela suffers from hunger, crime, ignorance, and corruption, and Russia is now offering to give this primitive nation some nuclear power generators. I can think of two possible reasons that Russia is doing this. The most likely is that they are simply treating Venezuela as a circus seal, and they are offering some raw fish to the seal in order to manipulate it into performing tricks for Russia. The other possibility is that the Russian leaders honestly believe that they will make life better for Venezuela. However, giving nuclear power to a nation for either of those two reasons is destructive. We will not improve the world by trying to manipulate one another with gifts, or by giving or selling technology to primitive nations.

The people in Venezuela can't handle the technology they already have. They are like people all over the world. The majority of people in every nation are incapable of dealing with the complex problems of modern life. Most people have the mind of a primitive savage, and we don't help a group of savages by giving them technology. Take a look at the American people for an example. A small number of Americans have developed nuclear power, cruise missiles, automobiles, oil refineries, and telephone networks, but the majority of Americans cannot deal with any of this technology, and they can't even have a discussion about the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack. Most Americans cannot cope with life today.

The majority of people are savages who want to titillate themselves with material items, sex, babies, pets, jewelry, and awards. The "advanced" nations are not dealing with the problems of the modern world, so how can we expect Venezuela or the "primitive" nations to deal with these issues? We cannot even provide ourselves with an honest group of news reporters! We are still being lied to about the 9/11 attack and other crimes!
 

We're not going to improve any nation by developing even more advanced weapons or automobiles or solar cells. Our problems are not due to a lack of technology, or a lack of electricity, or a lack of oil. We're not even suffering from a lack of food. The problems of the human world are due to the people who are destructive, parasitic, dishonest, and irresponsible. The only way to improve the world is to put higher quality people in control of society. We need school teachers who are honest; government officials who have a concern for society; policemen that we can trust; and businessmen who compete in a productive manner that inspires us to make society better.

The problems of the human world are due to the people who fight, cheat, hide from problems, rape, and behave in other destructive and parasitic manners. We cannot make these people behave better simply by giving them nuclear power plants, or bags of rice, or more advanced solar cells.

Venezuela is currently suffering from hunger, corruption, incompetence, and dishonest policemen. They will continue to be the same people with the same problems even if we give them as much technology as we have. They will continue to have the same crime gangs, and the same problems with drugs, and the same corrupt and incompetent government officials.

This photo and the insulting remarks about Christina Aguilera is "old" news, but after noticing the attempts by Jews to promote freedom of speech in China, I thought it was a good example of the type of people who dominate the media and the Internet, and some of their methods of manipulating people. I also wanted you to seriously think about whether Americans and Europeans have more freedom of speech than the people of China.
Update 2019: The insulting message about Aguilera has been deleted, but it still in the Internet archive, although without the photo. If it is deleted from the Internet archive, here is a screen image of that message.

Did you know that in 2005 a Japanese television crew traveled around America and Canada to interview some of us about the 9/11 attack? One of the Japanese women who worked for the television company in their San Francisco office promised to send me a copy of the final, edited video. I talked to her after it was broadcast on Japanese television, and I mentioned that I hadn't received a copy of the video. She told me that I was the only person in the video to have my name and face blocked, and she assumed that I wanted to remain secretive and anonymous.

When I told her I never asked to have my name or anything blocked, she was surprised that somebody at the studio would have done that on their own. It never occurred to her that somebody within her company is censoring their videos. She never sent me a copy of the video, and nobody from Japan ever contacted me again. However, the Japanese continued to interview other Americans about 9/11, and eventually they held some meetings about 9/11. They also invited people to speak about 9/11 in Japan, but they won't invite me, or even allow my name to appear on Japanese television.

Can you see the significance of this? That Japanese woman was working for a Japanese television company, and she was oblivious to the Jews who were censoring the videos they were producing. If an employee of a Japanese television company doesn't realize that her company is being secretly censored by Jews, how many of the ordinary Japanese people realize that Jews are censoring their information?

The Jews can fill the Internet with propaganda, but they cannot censor information on the Internet. Therefore, the Japanese people who know the English language can look at my website, but the Japanese news reporters and television producers are not allowed to mention my name, or discuss the Holocaust or the 9/11 attack. So how much freedom of speech do the Japanese have?

Furthermore, the Japanese should be seriously wondering how a group of Jews are controlling the Japanese media. Are there Jews working inside the Japanese companies as employees? Or are the Jews controlling Japan from the outside by working with Japanese criminals who are inside their media companies?
 

“We Americans have freedom of speech, but the Chinese don't. It says so right here in this newspaper article about China.” “I'm sick of your anti-Semitic conspiracies! It says here that Jews are peaceful and loving, and have been victims of anti-Semitism for 6000 years.”

Americans boast that they have freedom of speech, but we don't have any more freedom than the Japanese. America, Europe, Japan, and other nations are under the control of an international network of criminal Jews, and as a result, all of our nations have very similar restrictions on our freedom of speech. All of us, for example, can publicly criticize government officials, the military, the CIA, and corporations, and we are free to make senseless insults about Angelina Jolie and Christina Aguilera. However, none of us have the freedom to have a serious discussion in public about the Holocaust, 9/11, and lots of other issues. Furthermore, I don't think anybody in any nation is allowed to mention my name or website on television.

Don't dismiss this as meaningless! You have a restricted freedom of speech! When I was a child I believed the propaganda that we Americans had freedom of speech, and that nations such as China suffered from oppressive censorship and propaganda. Now that the Internet exists, we can clearly see that there are lots of people, ideas, and photographs that the Jews have been keeping hidden from us. The Internet has removed the secrecy that has been protecting these disgusting, manipulative, criminal Jews. The people who cannot see the censorship are "slaves" who have been tricked into thinking that they are free. This, of course, is the best type of slave because they never complain!

We are victims of constant attempts to manipulate us. Here are three important issues to consider in regards to the photo of Christina Aguilera:

I think that if somebody had published that type of photo during the 1960s, most people would have considered it to be almost as disgusting as a person publishing a photo from a camera that was secretly installed inside a public toilet. Today, however, the public is so tolerant of toilet humor that these photos don't shock many people. That photo was originally posted by mamarazzi.org, but they have since deleted the page. However, babble.com is not ashamed of it.

Notice the attempt to make it appear as if the photo is Aguilera's fault! She is described as a "crotch flasher", which implies that she was deliberately exposing herself in public and wouldn't provide photographers with any other photos. The author of that insulting material also implied that Britney Spears behaves in the same manner: "I suppose that it was just a matter of time before Christina Aguilera pulled a Britney" (in case you were unaware, Britney Spears and other women were photographed in a similar position as they got in or out of their automobiles.) Also, notice that they added a bright green, "toxic waste" logo to the photo. This is yet another attempt to manipulate us.

The babble.com site has a Mission Statement, and the first sentence explains why they created the magazine: "We created Babble for one very simple reason: we can't find a magazine or community that speaks to us as new parents." How does that photo of Aguilera or their insults "speak to new parents"? The only connection that photo has to "new parents" is that Aguilera is pregnant in the photo.

Can you see the trick? It's important that you understand what these criminals are doing. The Jews boast that they are creating publications and websites to help you and me with some issue, and they also create lots of different news and talk shows to help us understand world events, but in reality, they are creating tens of thousands of different methods of delivering propaganda to us. We are fools to look through their propaganda smorgasbord. We should turn away from all of it in disgust and drive them to bankruptcy.

Ideally, businesses would also help drive the propaganda publications to bankruptcy by refusing to advertise in them, but our primitive nation was designed for a small group of simple farmers, not a modern, technically advanced society in which a network of criminal Jews has been able to get control of most media companies. As a result, most businesses are forced to advertise in one of the Jewish propaganda publications.
 

Imagine the Jews treating you in the same manner that they treated Christina Aguilera. Imagine Jews following you around with cameras, and then posting photos of you when you happen to be in positions that could be described as lewd, such as when you are adjusting your pants or underwear. And imagine the websites describing you as a "crotch flasher" and implying that you were deliberately behaving in this lewd manner in public.

The people who dominate the media are not "news reporters" or "journalists"! They are not even respectable humans. They are criminals; con artists; instigators of fights. They are trying to manipulate us into liking certain people and disliking certain other people. They also give bad publicity to the people they are trying to intimidate or frighten into submission.

Glancing through the headlines of the news will give you lots of examples of how the Jews try to manipulate us and intimidate people. For another example, Angelina Jolie is routinely insulted to an incredible extent (such as this), but her father, Jon Voight, who is very submissive and willing to do what the Jews tell him, is regularly treated in a nice manner.
 

Once you realize that we are being abused by a network of criminal Jews, you should seriously contemplate the issue of how a small network of freaks is keeping a large group of people under control. One of their techniques is to encourage us to behave in embarrassing or illegal manners so that they can set us up for humiliation or blackmail. Therefore, watch out for people who try to push you into doing things that you don't really want to do.

Murder is another of their techniques, so we should look for a Jewish connection in every accident, suicide, and death. For example, Bruce Lee died "accidently", but I think he was murdered by Jews. His son died young, also, in an even more suspicious manner; namely, while filming a movie, he died from a bullet after being shot with a Hollywood prop gun that shoots blanks!

In 2005 George Clooney suffered horrible nerve or brain damage while filming the Jewish propaganda movie "Syriana". Some people claim that his injury was due to the chair that he was tied to accidentally falling down, and this website wants us to believe that the damage was caused by Clooney, who was pushing himself too far during his acting. I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews were trying to give Clooney permanent brain damage, or kill him, and make it appear as an accident.
 

In May 2010, the criminals at Wikileaks posted a video that showed the US military killing some journalists in Afghanistan during 2007. As more people realize that we don't really have freedom of speech, and that our nation is suffering from a network of dishonest, manipulative, criminal journalists, then instead of being fooled by their tricks, more people will start to wonder:

"Why are we wasting our helicopters, laser guided missiles, and other advanced weapons, to kill journalists in Afghanistan when we need those troops and weapons here in America to protect us from the criminal journalists that are running loose in our nation!?!"

We don't have to tolerate criminals. Don't let criminals intimidate you into believing that they have a right to live among us. We could set higher standards of behavior for journalists, government officials, and even lawyers. We could exile or execute the abusive people. There is no rule in this universe that requires us to tolerate abuse. We don't have to live with people who lie, cheat, manipulate, or deceive us!

During the last week of September 2010, four homosexual, teenage boys in America committed suicide, but only Tyler Clementi received enormous attention by the media. Clementi supposedly committed suicide a couple days after his roommate posted video on the Internet of him having homosexual sex. His roommate, Dharun Ravi, and another student, Molly Wei, have been arrested for "violating his privacy". This incident brings up a lot of important issues.

Tyler Clementi

Dharun Ravi

Molly Wei

Imagine that instead of being homosexual, Clementi had several girlfriends, and he was deceiving each of them into thinking that they were his only girlfriend. And imagine his roommate became so disgusted that he secretly posted video of him having sex with all of the girls so that everybody could see that Clementi was involved with many women at the same time. Would people complain that his roommate should be arrested for violating his privacy? Or would people praise his roommate for exposing a deceptive, abusive con artist?

If that's not extreme enough, what if his roommate had secretly posted video of Clementi planning the robbery of a bank, or the burglary of a house? What if he had posted video of his roommate raping a five-year-old boy? What if he had posted a video of Larry Silverstein making preparations for the 9/11 attack? Would that also be violating Silverstein's privacy?

What if Oksana Grigorieva (who now is reported to have 39 lawyers working on getting money from Mel Gibson!) were to change her name and then tell people that she was a virgin? If somebody were to post a video of her having sex with that James Bond actor, Timothy Dalton, or Mel Gibson, would that person be "violating her privacy"? Or would he be "exposing a con artist"? At what point does the exposing the deception switch from "violating privacy" to "helping society by exposing con artists and helping us to understand who we are living amongst"?
 

The people who benefit by lying about themselves are those with horrible qualities. By deceiving us, they can trick us into giving them jobs they would otherwise never qualify for, and they may be able to fool us into marrying them. From the point of view of the human race, honesty is the best policy. Everybody should earn their job based on their ability to perform the job, not on their ability to lie and deceive. And when we select a spouse, we should be able to pick people according to what they truly are, not according to the false and deceptive image that they created for themselves. Furthermore, when we allow con artists to trick us into marriage, we allow them to reproduce, thereby contaminating human DNA and creating more freaks who push the philosophy that exposing the truth about a person is "violating his privacy".

The truth might be embarrassing, and it might even hurt a bit, but so what? People who deceive us should be regarded as con artists or criminals; as animals or savages; as freaks or inferior humans. We don't need more of these disgusting creatures. We need more people that we can trust, respect, and admire.

My attitude is that we have a right to know who we live with, and who we are marrying, and who we are working with. Why should a person be allowed to deceive us about his drug use, or his previous pedophilia convictions, or his history of psychotic behavior? Can you think of any sensible reason to allow people who are ashamed of themselves to deceive us? It's their problem that they're ashamed of themselves. It's not our problem. We don't owe them the right to deceive us simply because they don't like themselves.
 

Steven Goldstein, the chairman of a gay rights group, said that his group considers Clementi's death to be a "hate crime", not just a "suicide". Consider a more extreme example. For example, imagine if a college student took a photo of his roommate when he first woke up in the morning, and his hair was a mess, and he posted the photo on the Internet. Imagine that his roommate is so embarrassed by his sloppy hair that he commits suicide. Who would be responsible for his suicide? Would you accuse his roommate of committing a hate crime? Should the police arrest him for violating his privacy?

At what point does a person become responsible for his own suicide? At one extreme is a boy who is kidnapped and then used as a sex slave by Congressmen, policemen, and doctors who routinely rape, beat, and torture him at parties in Washington DC. If that boy were to get fed up with the abuse and commit suicide, I would say the people responsible for his suicide are the people who kidnapped and abused him. At the other extreme, if a newspaper publishes a photo of President Obama giving a speech, and an adult man notices that he is in the crowd behind Obama, and his hair is very messy, and he becomes so emotionally upset at the thought of people seeing him with messy hair that he commits suicide, then I would describe that man as having a serious mental disorder, and that he is responsible for his suicide.

Unless more information comes out to suggest that Clementi was the victim of some bizarre mind control experiment, I would say that Clementi is solely responsible for his suicide. I would say his roommates were simply letting the other students know the truth about him. I wouldn't arrest his roommate, or any of the other students. I would tell them, "Good job! Let's hope you inspire other people to stand up to and expose the people who deceive us about themselves."
 

There is no dividing line between "providing valuable information" to society and "behaving in an obnoxious, disgusting manner". If somebody were to secretly film a man as he commits murder, arson, or rape, then most people would consider the video to be evidence of a crime, and they would describe the man as providing valuable information to the police. At the other extreme, people who secretly put cameras in public bathrooms simply because they are titillated by the images could be described as disgusting, obnoxious people.

Our ancestors 50,000 years ago couldn't keep many secrets from one another, but today people are hiding an amazing amount of information about their history and their mental and physical qualities. One of the reasons we have trouble finding friends, employees, and spouses is because many, or most, people are essentially wearing masks and trying to deceive us about what they really are. We don't know much about the people we live amongst, and we currently don't have any way of getting access to information about people. People are hiding their criminal history, previous failed relationships, homosexuality, drug problems, alcohol problems, and mental illness. It is currently legal and acceptable for people to hide and lie about their unpleasant qualities, and their past. How do you or I benefit by allowing people to lie about themselves?

The people who are ashamed of themselves assume that they benefit from the secrecy and deception, but nobody benefits, not even the freaks. It would be much easier for all of us to find friends and a spouse if everybody would stop the deception. The freaks believe that by deceiving people, they will find friends and a spouse, but eventually people figure out that they have been deceived, and then the relationship will fail. In the long run, everybody loses. The people who deceive us could be described as con artists who are ruining life for both themselves and the rest of us. The freaks are torturing themselves; they are wasting their miserable, pitiful lives. They are fools to spend their lives living in shame, secrecy, and embarrassment. They should learn to accept what they are and deal with it. They cannot change what they are by lying to us.
 

Most people accuse Clementi's roomate of committing a crime. I don't know the details of the situation, and we can't trust the news reporters to give us honest reports, but based on what little I know, I would say that Clementi was committing a crime by deceiving people into thinking he was heterosexual. I would say that his roommate was merely exposing the truth about him. Why should homosexuals have the legal authority to deceive us about their sexual behavior? Why should an alcoholic have the legal authority to hide his alcohol problems from us? Why should a person who has been convicted of pedophilia or other crimes be allowed to hide his criminal history and deceive us into thinking that he is just another, typical person? Why should anybody have the right to deceive us about their true mental qualities?

I think society has a responsibility to let us know who we are living with. We shouldn't allow people to deceive us about who they are. A homosexual who lies to us about his homosexuality is a con artist, not a homosexual. A married woman who pretends that she is single is a con artist, not a married woman. A married man who pretends that he is single is a con artist, also. A person with an alcohol problem who deceives people into thinking that he doesn't have a problem should be described as a con artist, also.

People who deceive us should be considered as "criminals" or as "con artists". It doesn't matter whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. A person who deceives us about his drug problems should be considered a con artist, also. What gives these people the right to lie to us? Or, if they are allowed to deceive us, are we allowed to deceive them?
 

I can't think of any sensible reason to justify allowing people to deceive us about themselves. However, I can understand why a lot of people are tempted to hide the truth about themselves, especially homosexuals and hermaphrodites. Both of those groups are under pressure to hide their sexual problems because there are millions of religious fanatics who have no ability to tolerate genetic disorders, mainly because they cannot understand the concepts of genetics or evolution. Some religious fanatics have such a disgusting mind that when this baby was born with two faces in India, they interpreted it as a sign from God. It was understandable for people centuries ago to be confused by Siamese twins, but we now know that these people are the result of genetic mistakes. People who can't understand this concept should be regarded as too mentally incompetent for this modern world.

The religious fanatics may be the primary group of people causing homosexuals to live in fear. The religious fanatics also encourage hatred of other religions, and they interfere with lots of scientific research. I think one way to improve the situation is to get rid of organized religions and insist that religion be a philosophy, not a moneymaking venture or an organization. If we keep the religious fanatics under control, then people with two faces, sexual defects, mental disorders, allergies, and other problems should be able to freely admit that they have these problems. And scientists would be able to study the problems.
 

Allowing people to hide their homosexuality, diabetes, allergies, or other problem is idiotic. We don't make life better by hiding from problems like a frightened animal. We need to study the problems that we suffer from. We need to bring the problems out in the open. The religious fanatics and other people who can't deal with these problems should be suppressed.

In the news right now, October 2010, are more articles that John Travolta is homosexual. These accusations have been going on for years, but as long as his affairs are voluntary, why should you or I care? The well-behaved homosexuals, hermaphrodites, diabetics, cripples, and deaf people have nothing to fear by being honest about themselves. People with problems are afraid to be honest about themselves, but if everybody were to stop the deception and be honest, how would anybody suffer? Life would go on! And it would be more relaxed and pleasant for everybody because none of us would become disgusted by discovering that we have been deceived, and the homosexuals wouldn't have to live in fear of exposure, and people wouldn't discover after years of marriage that their spouse has been lying to them.

Also, if everybody with diabetes, allergies, homosexuality, insomnia, alcoholism, and other problems would be honest about themselves, I think the public would be overwhelmed with the quantity of people who have problems. I think it would help some people - possibly even some religious fanatics - realize that these problems are so common that nobody is "flawless", and that people have been suffering from these problems for centuries, and that there will be more suffering in the future. It might help people realize that we need to investigate these problems rather than pretend they don't exist. Furthermore, we might discover that some of these problems are increasing, or that some are increasing in certain areas where certain pollution is high. We might be able to figure out what is causing some of them. And we might be able to reduce some of them.
 

It should be easy to understand how this concept applies in regards to trash. When we allow people to throw trash on the street, it causes other people to realize that there is no point in being neat, and so they are more likely to throw trash on the street, also.

The more deception there is, the more pressure we feel to join in and be deceptive also. An example is the whitening of teeth. When nobody whitens their teeth, there is not too much of a difference between us, but when people whiten their teeth, they become "better than normal" people. They make the rest of us feel inferior, and this causes other people to want to whiten their teeth. The more people that do this, the more pressure there is for us to whiten our teeth.

My grandmother told me that when she was a child, not many women would pierce their ears, but today women are regularly doing that, plus piercing other areas. Many women today are also removing wrinkles with Botox, having injections in their lips, and having cosmetic surgery. It's also becoming more common for both men and women to color their gray hair. Every year this behavior becomes more common and more extreme. The more common it is for people to alter their physical appearance to make themselves look younger and more attractive, the more pressure there is on everybody else to do it also.

Some of the deceptive things that we do with our body are trivial, such as women who cover acne pimples with makeup, but when we deceive people about our personality or mental qualities, we are hurting everybody, including ourselves. Deceiving people about our mental qualities can achieve the result that we want; namely, getting into relationships that we would otherwise never get into, but what good does that do us? The relationship is very likely to fail as soon as the other person discovers that they have been deceived.
 

Why do we have a desire to deceive other people? Why aren't humans honest and considerate? Why do we have this natural tendency to lie, deceive, and manipulate? The reason is simply because humans are not the creation of a loving God. We are just animals with intelligence. An animal doesn't care about other animals, or about the environment. Animals are incredibly selfish, arrogant creatures that do anything necessary to survive and reproduce.

Humans are not much better than animals. However, we differ in our selfishness and arrogance. We also differ in our ability to think and control our emotions. As a result of these differences, there are some people who will deceive people only to a trivial extent, such as whitening their teeth, but there are other people who deceive us to a phenomenal extent, such as lying about serious mental disorders, or hiding the fact that they are part of a crime network.

However, nobody benefits when we deceive one another about our mental qualities. We will be much happier when we form friendships and marriages with people who like us for what we really are, not who are attracted to the phony image that we have created for ourselves. Unfortunately, a lot of people are terrified that if they were honest about themselves, nobody would like them.

This fear of rejection is similar to what I've mentioned in regards to allowing cities to be different, and making it effortless to fire people from their jobs. A lot of people worry that they are such losers that nobody would want to hire them or live with them, and so they want to make it impossible for them to be fired, and they are afraid of the concept of cities that set standards for behavior. However, this fear is ridiculous. There certainly are a few psychotic individuals that nobody likes, but the majority of people should stop creating a phony image of themselves, become more open and honest, and look for people who like them for what they really are. The people who deceive us should be considered as con artists or psychos. And the people who expose their deception should be considered as doing us a favor, not violating their privacy.
 

As is typical for the people in the media, they have nothing intelligent to say about Clementi's suicide. For example, Dr. Keith Ablow, who refers to himself as "America's psychiatrist", said that Clementi's suicide "is evidence of the dehumanizing effects that technology is having on young people." What does that mean? And why doesn't Dr. Ablow expose the dehumanizing effect that Jews are having on us with their wars, propaganda, lies, murders, rapes, toilet humor, and blackmail? Is Dr. Ablow really America's psychiatrist? Since he gets favorable publicity by the Jews, we ought to consider that he is actually a psychiatrist for the pedophiles, murderers, and criminals of the Jewish crime network.
 

Keep in mind that our information about Tyler Clementi is coming from news reporters who lie to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, and lots of other crimes. And keep in mind that Jews are constantly instigating fights between men and women, different races, different religions, and different nations. Also, some information about Clementi is coming from police departments, but they also ignore and/or lie to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other crimes. Furthermore, keep in mind that our law enforcement agencies found the DNA of all passengers of Flight 11 at the Pentagon even though there's no sign of any passengers. Therefore, we ought to consider that their reports about Clementi are just as deceptive as all of their other reports.

Why would they lie about Clementi? There are lots of possible reasons, such as making Jews look good. For example, on 12 October 2010, Rabbi Steven Wernick wrote such boastful remarks as:

"Bullying is antithetical to Judaism. We believe that every human being is created b'tzelem Elohim, in the image and likeness of God. Bullying another person, therefore, is like bullying God."

We could describe that Rabbi as exploiting Clementi's death in an effort to trick us into believing that Jews are more peaceful and loving than the rest of us. He is also creating the impression that homosexuals can depend on Jews for protection. If any homosexuals fall for that trick, and if they contact the Jews, then the Jews will know that they are homosexual, and then the Jews will be able to blackmail them! Make sure you become aware of this trick, which we could call "Fishing for suckers".

We should also wonder why the Jews selected Clementi's death for the "news". There are thousands of crimes and other events occurring every day. Why did they pick Clementi's death? It should be obvious that the Jews are selecting the crimes that promote Jewish propaganda, or fights between different races, sexes, nations, or religions. The Jews are not trying to help us. They're trying to destroy our society so that they can conquer us.

Therefore, before you get emotionally upset over the death of Clementi, consider the possibility that the Jews are involved. For one possible scenario, after the video of Clementi was posted on the Internet, the Jews may have seen an opportunity to benefit from his suicide, so the Jews may have secretly killed Clementi and then promoted his "suicide" as evidence that heterosexuals are dangerous, violent maniacs who have no tolerance for homosexuality, and who will torment homosexuals to the point of suicide, and therefore, the homosexuals must remain frightened and hidden rather than coming out in the open.

There are so many other possibilities that I'll only mention one other. Perhaps Clementi wanted to die because he had some terrible disease or mental disorder, and the Jews took advantage of the situation by arranging for it to appear as a suicide after being tormented by hateful heterosexuals.
 

There are millions of people around the world who have come to the conclusion that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust, and that the Jews instigated both World Wars, and that the Jews were secretly involved with the Nazi party and the Communist Party. However, of all of the millions of "Holocaust Deniers" in the world, the Jews will condemn only a few of them. David Irving and David Duke for example, are given publicity in both America and Europe as anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. They have also put David Irving and some others in jail for a while for Holocaust denial. However, the Jews would never give me television publicity as a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite.

It's very important that you look through history and notice that in 2002 and 2003 many of the people in the so-called truth movement would interview me on their radio shows, invite me to speak at their meetings, and sell my book and video. But several years ago they all stopped giving me publicity. Even the stupid Jews are starting to figure out that the Internet has exposed them. They are now giving publicity only to members of their network and to people that they have control over.

It's also important to understand that when the Jews put David Irving in jail, they made a public spectacle of it because they are trying to frighten people into thinking that if they dare stand up to the Jews, a group of mindless, criminal policemen will arrest them.

It is also helpful to understand that Jews are not the superior race of people. If they were truly the most intelligent, honest, and responsible, then they could impress us with their talent. They depend on deception, secrecy, murder, blackmail, bribery, intimidation, and kidnapping because they are a network of parasites and freaks. Their success comes from crime, not talent.

Don't let these criminals outsmart you! When the Jews promote a person or philosophy, your reaction should be to wonder why the Jews selected that person or philosophy. You should also wonder who the Jews are ignoring, and what those suppressed and censored people would have said if they had been interviewed by television reporters. If the Jews promote an ex-CIA agent, an FBI agent, or 9/11 truth seeker, you should assume that those people are working for the Jews. And you should wonder what the CIA agents who were not interviewed would have said.

There are millions of events occurring every day, and millions of people who could be interviewed by television news reporters, but the Jews are giving publicity to only a few events and only a few people. Don't think the Jews are picking the events and people to help us understand the world. They are trying to manipulate us.
 

In October 2010, Rick Sanchez was fired from his job as a television host because he made an "anti-Semitic" remark and because he criticized the Jewish comedian, Jon Stewart. A few days later, Rick Sanchez was reported to have apologized to Jon Stewart!

Don't let them outsmart you! For example, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are holding this political demonstration in Washington DC on 30 October 2010, and this site is publishing what they claim is an e-mail message from the MTV management to their employees which pressures them into going to the rally. This is similar to their trick of stuffing the ballot. Can you see how this trick works? Humans have a tendency to follow the crowd, and so the Jews are trying to create the impression that there is a very large crowd of people supporting Jon Stewart and his political message.

All of the people involved in setting up this deception could be arrested as con artists if we had higher standards for behavior and an honest legal system. The MTV management could even be arrested for abusing employees. We don't have to put up with criminals who abuse us in this manner. However, most people don't care. They will allow these disgusting, dishonest, manipulative, diabolical, murderous, sickening Jews to continue their crimes and destructive behavior. (By the way, I criticized Stewart in a few years ago in the video #4 The Northwoods Document, Jon Stewart).

Once you become aware of how often the Jews try to manipulate us, you ought to wonder if the firing of Rick Sanchez is also deceptive. We should consider the possibility that this is just another trick by the Jews to frighten their blackmailed puppets into remaining silent about the Jews. It's possible that rebellion is growing among the puppets, and that Rick Sanchez was fired, or volunteered to be fired, as an example of what will happen to a person who dares to oppose the Jews.

How do we know if Rick Sanchez is an honest victim, or if he is secretly working with the Jews? How do we know who to trust? How do we determine who among us is a criminal? It's not possible, so don't fool yourself into thinking that you can do it. Instead, be suspicious of everybody, especially people most likely to be a member or a blackmailed victim of a crime network, such as Jews, homosexuals, pedophiles, people with drug problems, and people with intense cravings for money, fame, gambling, and violence. Also, watch out for anybody who seems weird or perverted.

1) Temporary, sporadic, random bullying

Occasionally some of us encounter an angry or psychotic person who insults us or starts a fight with us. If he has friends, then they might sometimes join in on the bullying. This type of bullying is coming from a small number of angry people. If we move to a different city, then we are no longer around that angry person, and the bullying will cease, unless the new city has somebody similar to him.

2) Perpetual bullying

Some children are victims of bullying year after year. These children can switch to a different school or move to a different city, and the bullying continues. They are like that cartoon character, Pigpen, in the Peanuts comic strip, but instead of a cloud of dirt following them around, they are bullied everywhere they go. These children are analogous to the chickens that have lots of their feathers plucked out. They are not necessarily homosexual. Some are fat, some are skinny, some are tall, and some are short. The only thing they have in common is that most of the other children don't like them. Therefore, no matter where they go, the other children continue to dislike them.
 

A government official in Minnesota claims that there is a "bullying epidemic", and he is promoting an anti-bullying bill. There are lots of news articles now about children being bullied, some of whom became very famous entertainers. As I was skimming over that article, I was thinking of my childhood and wondering why I was never bullied. I don't remember other children being bullied, either! Is this problem worse today than it was when I was a child?

There is only one incident in my life that I can recall that could be described as resembling "bullying". It was when I was in second or third grade at Carmel River Elementary School, but I can't remember the details. I can remember that at the time I was a bit frustrated and confused about life. My parents had separated but not divorced, and that might have been part of the reason. I have some faint memory of saying something critical or stupid to some older boys, but I can't remember what I might have said, or why I said it. However, I remember that two of the older boys were upset with me and told me that they would meet me after school at a particular location along the bicycle path that we would pass on our ride home.

At that age, boys don't fight in a violent manner, but I wasn't interested in having a fight, so I rode my bike home along a different route. The next day, or the next week, or whenever it was, after they realized I was avoiding them, they met me after school in the bicycle parking lot. I can't remember exactly what happened but I remember pushing one of them away from me, and I guess he was surprised that I was willing to stand up to him and push him so hard, and he didn't seem much interested in fighting with me, so he backed away and stood off to the side, but the other boy was not going to back down. Even though he was a year or more older and a bit larger than me, somehow I got him bent over the top railing of the bicycle rack. His stomach was on the top rail, and I was on top of him, grabbing onto the rack with both hands, and pushing him into the rack. It was probably more embarrassing to him than painful. At that point some adult arrived to break up the fight.

I was never angry at those boys. In fact, I felt guilty that it was at least partly my fault. I don't know what caused them to be upset with me, but I remember thinking that it was probably due to stupid remarks that I had made. Perhaps I had insulted them, and they considered me to be a bully! Whatever the reason they were upset with me, I looked at the situation as a learning experience of how I shouldn't make idiotic comments that annoy people.

I don't remember either of the boys having any contact with me again. Perhaps they came to a similar conclusion as me; namely, that it was a learning experience about how they should not get so upset about remarks people make.

That is the only time in my life that I can remember experiencing anything resembling a fight or a bullying, but none of us were emotionally traumatized or cried to anybody about it. We just quietly continued on with life after the incident was over. However, if there had been video documentation of my childhood, I bet I would discover that I was insulted many times. This brings me to some important issues:

1) Some of us learn from life's problems; some of us cry

All humans have very similar physical and mental qualities, and we all experience very similar events in life. However, we react differently to life's events. A good example that is in the news right now is the comedian Margaret Cho, who claims that she loved ballet, but she quit ballerina classes because somebody in her class referred to her as a "fat ballerina". The people in the media promote her story as evidence of the widespread bullying, but I don't think being insulted one time by one child is bullying.

Margaret Cho was just one of millions of children who has been insulted. However, children react differently to insults. Some children ignore the insults; some look critically at themselves and make an attempt to become a better person; and some react by feeling sorry for themselves, crying, or altering their plans for the future. The news reports make it appear as if Margaret Cho quit ballet classes because of one insult. If that is the truth, then this is not the reaction of a "normal" child. This is the reaction of a child who can't cope with routine childhood events. That is a child suffering from a serious emotional disorder.

For another example of how we react differently to the same event, consider how people react to the information that we were lied to about the September 11 attack, the Holocaust, or the Apollo moon landing. At one extreme are people who have so much trouble dealing with these possibilities that they don't want to listen to the information, and they cannot have a calm discussion about it. If you force them to discuss the issue, they cannot do so in a calm manner. Instead, their heart rate will increase, they will clench their teeth, and they will often make fists as they try to control themselves.

At the other extreme are people who may be shocked at the thought that they were lied to, and they may laugh at and resist the "silly conspiracy theories", but they are capable of listening to the information and discussing it in a serious manner. As a result, these people will eventually realize that they were indeed lied to.
 

2) Some of us allow abuse; some of us oppose it

Another difference between us is that most people react to abuse just like a stupid animal. They essentially hide in the corner and quietly lick their wounds. When these people eventually figure out that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, their reaction is to quietly allow the Jews to continue the abuse. They don't want to stand up to the Jews. They become frightened and want to hide from the Jews.

At the other extreme are the people who react by wanting to expose, identify and arrest the criminals who are responsible. They are willing to stand up to people who abuse them. However, these are not necessarily violent people. For example, I don't look for fights; in fact, my first option is to avoid fights. However, in the case of that dispute in elementary school, when I couldn't avoid a fight, I didn't sit down on the ground like a frightened rabbit, cover my head with my arms, and allow the boys to attack me. Instead, I took the offensive and attacked both of them. I will defend myself if I have to. I am also willing to take the offensive and attack the criminal Jews. If more people in this world were like me, their crime network would have been destroyed long ago, but most people are like a frightened animal that allows itself to be beaten over and over.
 

3) Bullying is in the eye of the beholder

Some people complain that they were victims of bullying for years during their childhood, but the teachers and parents did nothing to stop it. Why don't adults stop the bullying of children? One reason is because the adults don't always see the bullying. For example, if you were in the classroom when Margaret Cho was a child, and you overheard another child tell her that she's a fat ballerina, would you have realized that "bullying" was occurring? I think you would've dismissed it as just an ordinary childhood insult of no importance.

Furthermore, if Margaret were to react to the insult by crying, I think most adults would be disgusted with her and describe her as a "crybaby". They might regard the other student as rude, but they wouldn't rush to protect her from the "bully".
 

Why do children insult one another? Why don't they love one another? Why do children make fun of children who are fat, or who can't pronounce words properly, or who are as ugly as Neanderthals? Many people would like to stop children from tormenting one another, but how can we stop a problem if we don't know what causes it?

This is a very important issue, but I think that the primary reason we can't discuss it in public is because religious fanatics cannot tolerate the possibility that this behavior is exactly the same behavior that we see in animals, such as when chickens pluck the feathers out of other chickens. Most religious fanatics are struggling to ignore the similarities between animals and humans, and this particular aspect of human behavior makes us look extremely similar to animals, and it supports the theory of evolution.

When animals are physically and mentally healthy, their fights seem like play.

As I pointed out in part 2 of my Social Technology articles, animals have this behavior because it's one of nature's ways of dealing with genetic defects. Puppies and kittens, for example, get into fights with each other every day. With "healthy" animals, there is nothing to worry about. In fact, the fights appear to be some form of recreational activity. The only animals that suffer from these fights are the animals that are physically or mentally defective. Their inability to properly defend themselves seems to stimulate the other animals into fighting with them even more. Eventually they are pushed away from food, and they end up with physical injuries. Many of them would die if not for humans interfering with the process.

If the animals could talk, the defective animals would complain about being bullied year after year. However, humans cannot stop animals from abusing the defective animals. The only thing we can do is separate the defective animals from the healthy animals, or kill the defective animals. We can't stop the bullying. It's part of animal behavior.

Consider how this applies to human children, such as that fight between me and those two older boys. If I had sat down on the ground and cried, or if I had been so uncoordinated or emotionally defective that I was unable to fight, they may have been stimulated into becoming disgusted with me, and then they may have picked on me even more. But they were shocked that I not only defended myself, but that I was on the offensive. Nobody was hurt, but they realized I wasn't going to back down.

The opposite is also true. If they had sat down on the ground and cried, or if they had been unable to defend themselves, then I might have looked at them with disgust, and I may have insulted them even more. But instead I suppose we all learned from the incident and decided not to get into any more disputes.
 

The fighting that children do might seem disgusting to the victims, but there's nothing we can do to prevent it or stop it. It's part of our mind. We are animals, not a wonderful creation of a loving God. This is nature's method of identifying the defective children and then driving them to death. Adults simply have to accept it as a learning process for animals and humans. The only children who suffer from this fighting are those who are too physically or emotionally defective to properly defend themselves. If the defective children cry, or if they fight back in an uncoordinated manner, they stimulate the other children into picking on them even more.

The only thing adults can do is separate the misfit children. Children cannot think well enough to understand what they're doing, and they don't have much control over their emotions, so we cannot simply order the children to stop fighting. This behavior is due to an emotion that has been designed into our brain. Telling children to stop tormenting the misfits would be like telling children to stop having an attraction to food. Children are going to continue behaving in this manner until the human mind has evolved into something more advanced and less like an animal.

Schools could put the misfits in different classrooms or different schools. We can't mix defective children with normal children, or feminine boys with normal boys, and then demand that the children love one another. Feeling sorry for the misfits won't help them, either. Actually, it will make the situation worse by encouraging the misfits to look for pity rather than deal with their problems.
 

Sladjana Vidovic committed suicide at age 16 after being bullied for years by other children. Ideally, there would be serious discussions among adults on what we should do with the misfit children, but unfortunately, most people will not tolerate discussions about this issue because they don't like the concept that some people are genetically defective, or that humans behave like animals, or that chemicals in the environment could be interfering with the development of a fetus and causing mental illness or sexual disorders. Also, a lot of homosexuals will not tolerate the possibility that they are "defective". A lot of them are pushing the concept that they are simply an alternative lifestyle.

A lot of people are also resisting the possibility that the children of older parents have more defects because their eggs and sperm are more defective. A lot of people have trouble facing the possibility that we deteriorate from age.

Most adults cannot handle the issue of misfit children, and so they ignore it completely, just like they ignore the 9/11 attack, and the lies about the Holocaust. And so children are going to continue tormenting one another, and some will end up committing suicide. If you want to blame somebody for the suicides, why not blame the adults who interfere with discussions about this issue?
 

The bullying that occurs with children diminishes with age, but adults have to deal with similar problems, such as intimidation and abuse by aggressive people or crime gangs. Consider the issue of feminism. Although the majority of women might describe themselves as "feminists", most women do not follow the feminist philosophy. Most women today are behaving like women have behaved for thousands of years. They treat boys and girls differently, and they expect to live a life that is dominated by children, socializing, and taking care of a home. They don't want to live like or be treated like a man.

I think the women who are pushing feminism are a small percentage of the female population. The feminists describe themselves as the more intelligent and more educated women, but I think they are either more masculine, or there is something seriously wrong with them which makes them perpetually unhappy, angry, or bitter. I don't think feminists are happy women, and I think that is the reason that feminism is an angry philosophy that hates men. It's not a pleasant philosophy that tries to understand life and bring improvements.

I think the majority of women are being intimidated, manipulated, and deceived by the small number of feminists. I think the feminists are exerting a tremendous influence over the world because the majority of women are too submissive to stand up to the feminists. Women want to follow leaders, not analyze or stand up to them. This makes it very easy for people to manipulate, and intimidate, and abuse women.

Men should stand up to the feminists and take care of the women, but most men can't even deal with the problems in their own life. Most men can't even have a sensible discussion about the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack. How could such pathetic men possibly stand up to feminists? Most men are "emotionally dysfunctional" in the modern world.
 

It's possible that some of the well-behaved homosexuals are also too submissive to stand up to the aggressive, disgusting homosexuals who are causing trouble for society. Most of us never notice the well-behaved homosexuals. The homosexuals that we notice are the aggressive and lewd men who grab at us, make crude remarks, or who rape boys. The nicely behaved homosexuals should dominate and suppress the abusive homosexuals, but the nicely behaved homosexuals may be too much like women. It's possible that the nicely behaved homosexuals need the more aggressive heterosexual men to come to their rescue and protect them, just as women and children need these men to protect them from feminists and disgusting heterosexual men. In other words, rather than fear us, the homosexuals should be asking for our help!
 

A lot of homosexuals and other people claim to be victims of bullying, poverty, or discrimination. These people want pity. However, from my casual observations, the people who do the most crying are the people who are simply the most selfish or the most neurotic. They are not necessarily suffering any more than the rest of us. Furthermore, they expect us to do things for them, but they do nothing for other victims. They are like the Marxists who want handouts, but who refuse to contribute something in return.

All of us suffer from imperfections, insults, and disappointments, but we react differently to our problems. Some of us deal with our problems very quietly, and others cry, or become angry, or become violent. It is true that some people have problems that are more serious than the problems that you or I have, but take a look at who does the most crying. There is no correlation between the amount of crying a person does and the severity of his problems. Margaret Cho, for example, is better looking (she is in the photo) and in better physical health, and her mind has a lot of qualities that are better than those of tens or hundreds of millions of other people. How can she complain about life? What is she a victim of? How is she suffering?

She assumes that her misery is the result of somebody calling her a fat ballerina, but I think she's suffering because she has an internal, emotional disorder that is preventing her from enjoying life. Her misery is coming from inside her own mind. She has a lot of wonderful physical and mental qualities, but she can't enjoy any of them. She is being tormented by her mental disorders.

Note: in case you wonder why I selected Margaret Cho for this article, she just happened to be in a lot of news articles, such as this, and videos this week (it is October 14, 2010 as I write this). There are probably lots of other people I could have used as an example for this article, but I just wasn't aware of them.

Another important concept to notice is that the people who do the most crying seem to have the least concern for other people. For example, is Margaret Cho doing anything to help us expose and stop the Jewish crime network? It's possible that she's fighting the Jews, but that she is doing so very secretly because she realizes that the Jews would arrange for her to have a suicide or accident if they knew she was helping to destroy their network. However, we should consider the possibility that she is fully aware that the Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, the World Wars, and the kidnapping of the Bollyn family, and that she doesn't care! We ought to consider the possibility that her only concern in life is becoming rich, famous, and pampered, and that she doesn't care what happens to any of us.

We should consider the possibility that the people who cry the most often about their personal suffering are doing so because they are very selfish people. They may have the attitude of a baby.

Furthermore, we ought to consider the possibility that many of the people who are rich and famous ended up rich and famous because they are abnormally selfish and inconsiderate people who don't care who they have to cheat, murder, or abuse in order to satisfy their cravings for money and fame. Many wealthy and famous people may be miserable, psychotic, and dangerous. Rather than enjoy life and contribute to society, perhaps all they can think about is satisfying their neurotic cravings for pampering, wealth, and fame.

I don't think very many people have become rich and famous by accident. Most of them seem to have struggled for years to become rich and famous, and some of them seem to have joined crime networks in order to achieve wealth and fame. Why should we feel sorry for any of them? What are they doing to help make the world better for us? Why should we care about them if all they care about is their personal wealth and fame?
 

Joel Burns, a city councilman in Texas gave an "awesome, emotional speech" to the other government officials about the problem of homosexual boys being bullied. As with all of the loving, caring, considerate adults who want to stop the bullying of homosexual boys, he doesn't care about the thousands of people in the military who are being killed or permanently disabled as a result of a war that the Jews instigated, and he doesn't care about the millions of people who suffered during the World Wars, or the Vietnam War, or the Korean War, and he doesn't care about the lies about the Holocaust. Why does he care only about a small number of homosexual boys who have been bullied? Is that really one of the serious problems in the world right now?
 

Lots of adults complain about being a victim of bullying, discrimination, poverty, or something else, but every one of us is capable of finding events in our life that we could complain about. Each of us could cry for hours about our genetic imperfections, and the times that we were mistreated or insulted, and the times that life disappointed us. However, we don't need more "victims". We need more people who can deal with problems and contribute to society. We don't need more babies who demand special pampering.

Don't give pity to adults who claim to be suffering from abuse, and we should especially not give special pampering to people who cry for pity while they ignore the suffering of the rest of the world. If they don't show any concern about the victims of the wars, or the victims of the 9/11 attack, or the children who are being sold as sex slaves, then why should we care about them? Why care about a person who doesn't care about anything except himself? Perhaps one of the reasons that these people were insulted as children is because their personalities are disgusting!
 

There are lots of people around the world who are helping to expose and destroy the Jewish crime network, but I would bet that they rarely cry about being a victim. I suspect that the people who do the most crying are the people who do the least to help the world. I think they are crying because they want special pampering. They are more selfish than the rest of us. When they experience a problem, they cry rather than find a way to deal with their problems. They expect us to stop what we are doing and treat them like a baby.

Don't follow the philosophy that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. That philosophy might apply to old stagecoaches of the 1800s, but it doesn't apply to people or animals. Squeaky humans should not be given grease; rather, they should be removed from society. The rule that we should tell people to follow is very simple: Either deal with life's problems and contribute to society, or get out! We shouldn't put up with abuse, crying, tantrums, envy, or pouting.

An organization is a team of people who cooperate and work together. They should be able to communicate with one another and coordinate their efforts. They should be like gears in a machine.

Almost everybody can understand that a small organization will not function very well when the members are speaking different languages, or when they despise or distrust one another, or when they are cheating one another. Almost everybody realizes that small organizations must be very selective about their members, and they must remove the members who are destructive, or parasitic, or who harm the morale of the group. It's also easy to understand that small organizations must have competent leadership that the members respect and trust.

However, we have yet to apply this concept to large organizations. The larger an organization is, the more pressure it faces to tolerate whoever wants to become a member. Large businesses, the military, the government, cities, and nations are under tremendous pressure to accept everybody. Furthermore, most people believe that large organizations should randomly mix everybody together. The situation in America is so extreme that many of us are living among people who don't speak the English language, so we can't communicate with them, and many of us are also living around people we distrust, despise, or keep track of with pedophile databases. We are also living among homeless people. America is not a team of people who enjoy working together. This is just a gathering place for individuals who are looking for jobs, money, or a way to escape the police in their native nation.

To make the situation even worse, the larger organization is, the less we care about its leadership. If the coach of a football team were as incompetent or dishonest as a government official, the members of the team would be very upset and demand that the coach be replaced. We don't tolerate incompetence with the leaders of small organizations, but we tolerate phenomenal levels of abuse among the leaders of large organizations.

Organizations, including the military, cities, and nations, must control immigration, and they must ensure that their members and their leaders are a team that works together. The only people who benefit by forcing incompatible people into a team are the people who are trying to destroy the organization.
 

Recently Lady Gaga recorded what I would describe as a dreary, almost psychotic video message to the American government in an attempt to convince government officials to allow homosexuals in the military. There are a tremendous number of problems in the world for her to discuss, such as the 9/11 attack, the lies of the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing scam, so why did she select the issue of homosexuals in the military? Perhaps partly because of Lady Gaga, on 12 October 2010, a federal judge ruled that the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy is unconstitutional. I would say it's unconstitutional to ruin the morale of the military. I think every organization should decide for themselves who they want as a member, and what their policies will be. No organization benefits when people are forced to work together when they don't want to work together.

The military and police should be teams that protect society, and if the men don't want to work with homosexuals, adulterers, or pedophiles, or if they want homosexuals in separate divisions, or if they want to separate men from women, then let them. If the military had separate divisions for homosexuals, would Lady Gaga be satisfied? Or does she want the homosexuals to be randomly mixed among the heterosexuals? Why is she getting involved with this issue? Why doesn't she show concern for the people in the military who are being killed and permanently injured from a war that the Jews instigated? Why is she concerned only with getting homosexuals into the military? Who is she trying to help? Watch her video. She seems unhappy to me. I wonder if she is a blackmailed puppet. This, incidentally, brings up another very interesting issue. There are a lot of speculations that she is sexually defective in some manner, such as having partial male organs. (This page claims that one of the top searches on Google is whether Lady Gaga is a man or a woman.)

Why are so many people in the media and government promoting pity for homosexuals, and promoting the concept that heterosexuals are violent, nasty creatures who enjoy tormenting homosexuals? I'm already sick of this propaganda, and I don't even see much news or television! Are the Jews trying to instigate fights between heterosexuals and homosexuals? If so, and if they continue this much longer, they may get their wish because I can see why this is going to start irritating heterosexuals after a few more months, and most people don't have the sense to realize it's the Jews who are causing the trouble, not the heterosexuals or the homosexuals.
 

As I wrote in # 5 of this file, it's best to think of abuse as being one of two types. If a homosexual is occasionally abused by somebody who is angry, then he's not really being "abused". Rather, he is simply "encountering" a miserable, angry person. He should be able to quietly deal with this problem by himself. The other type of abuse is more constant. This type of abuse happens to the people who are disliked, regardless of their sexuality, religion, weight, size, and physical appearance.

There are lots of homosexuals complaining that they have been abused year after year when they were in school, and they are claiming that the reason they were abused is because they were homosexual, and they imply that heterosexuals are hateful creatures. However, I don't think that's true. I would bet that there were other homosexuals in the same school who were not abused.

I doubt that many homosexuals are truly being abused in America or Europe simply because they are homosexual. I would bet that almost every homosexual who can show that he is suffering from abuse would turn out to be a person who is irritating people with his disgusting personality. In other words, people dislike him because of his personality, not because of his homosexuality.

There are certainly some angry heterosexuals who have been cruel to a few homosexuals, but I think those particular heterosexuals are an exception, and I would bet that if we could watch those angry heterosexuals during their lives, we would find that they are also abusive to some heterosexuals. The reason I say this is because a person who will attack a homosexual for no sensible reason is likely to attack other people, also, and possibly attack animals and even inanimate objects.
 

I think the Jews in the media are going to give homosexuals a bad image by implying day after day, week after week, that heterosexuals are nasty creatures. As I've mentioned before, the well-behaved homosexuals should stop hiding, and stop being ashamed of themselves. They should set the image of what a homosexual is. Of course, I am assuming that there are some respectable homosexuals! (As long as the homosexuals remain hidden, we will never know for sure.)
 

According to the statistics at this page, 1% of the population has something abnormal about their sexual organs. If that's true, that means there are about 60 million people worldwide with some sexual defect. Some of these defects may be insignificant, but that still leaves millions of people with a possibly serious sexual disorder. That's a lot of people! Do you know any of them? Where are they? Most of them are hiding their problem.

People with defective sexual organs are extremely secretive and ashamed. They assume that hiding their problem will help them, but when people hide something, they allow themselves to be blackmailed by crime networks. Even if they are not blackmailed, creating false images of yourself is not as pleasant as being honest. A person with a genetic defect should accept the fact that he's defective and make the best of it.
 

All of us have genetic defects. It doesn't make sense to describe somebody as 100% perfect. We shouldn't allow people to use their defects as justification for bad behavior. I don't hate the world because I have imperfections and limitations. I don't hate people who have the qualities I wish I had. Likewise, a person who is homosexual or a hermaphrodite should accept his problems and make the best of it. Yes, their problem is worse than mine, but so what? We shouldn't encourage people to get into a contest over who's problem is more serious. Our genetic defects are not cards in a poker game. If Lady Gaga is sexually defective, then she should become an inspiration for people around the world by admitting that she is defective. If instead, Lady Gaga decides to work with criminal Jews, then she deserves to be treated just like another criminal.

Wayne Stock and and his wife Sharmon were murdered in their home in the small town of Murdock, Nebraska in 2006. Two shotguns were used, so the police assumed two people were responsible. However, nothing was stolen from their home, and nobody seemed to benefit from the murder, so what would be the motive? Many of the people in this town were related to each other. By coincidence, a nephew of the victims, Matthew Livers, was angry at them. So the police and other people in the town assumed that Matthew Livers may be responsible. The police interrogated him, and after 18 hours he admitted to the murder, and he said his cousin, Nick Sampson, was also involved. You might assume that once the police had a confession, they would not bother wasting any more time investigating the crime, or even bother wasting time on a trial. However, America's legal system has been designed to make it extremely difficult to convict people of crimes. With our legal system, the police needed some physical evidence that linked Livers to the murder in order to guarantee that he would be considered guilty. To confuse the issue, a 17-year-old girl, Jessica Reid, was claiming that she and her boyfriend, Gregory Fester, were traveling aimlessly around the nation and burglarizing houses, and that her boyfriend killed both of the victims while they were trying to burglarize the house. The police dismissed her confession, perhaps because two guns were involved, and nothing had been stolen. The police wondered if perhaps Fester and Reid had met Livers and Sampson at a bar or restaurant, in which case all four might be involved, but Reid denied knowing Livers and Sampson. However, if Reid was making a false accusation to get her boyfriend in trouble, shouldn't she be considered guilty of a crime? Why should we tolerate false accusations? What if somebody were upset with you and accused you of murder? The police asked an outside investigator, David Kofoed, to help them with the investigation. Kofoed discovered a gold ring in the house that nobody could identify the owner of, so he asked other people to investigate the ring. He also re-examined Livers' car and discovered a microscopic bit of blood from the murder victims, thereby providing the police with the physical evidence that they needed to put both Sampson and Livers in jail. Less than two months later, David Kofoed received information that the mysterious ring had been stolen during a burglary of another house in another state, thereby providing evidence that Jessica Reid was in the house on the night of the murders. She was wearing the stolen ring on her thumb, which is one of the idiotic locations that girls are wearing rings today, and it fell off. However, when the police interrogated her, she insisted that her boyfriend killed both of the victims by himself, and that she didn't know Matthew Livers or Nick Sampson, and nobody else was in the house. However, there was one point during her interrogation when she admitted that both Matthew Livers and Nick Sampson were involved with the murders! Eventually the police came to the conclusion that Jessica Reid and her boyfriend were solely responsible for the murders. Sampson and Livers were released from jail, and the two teenagers were put in jail.

Matthew Livers confessed to the murders, and admitted that his cousin assisted.   Jessica Reid was 17 years old and claimed that her boyfriend (Gregory Fester) was responsible for the murders.   Gregory Fester was 19 years old. By the way, his ears stick out and his mouth protrudes forward, like a Neanderthal. Coincidence?

The reason this murder was so strange is because the two teenagers assumed that nobody was in the house, and when they encountered the owners, they panicked, killed both of them, and then ran away without stealing anything. This made it appear as if the murder was the result of a couple of idiots who were angry with the victims, and at the time, Sampson and Livers, who were partly retarded, were angry with the victims!

This murder brings up some interesting issues, such as:

1) Why did Matthew Livers admit to the murder and claim that his cousin had helped when both of them were innocent? The news articles make it appear as if the interrogation was so brutal that Matthew admitted to the crime because he decided that he would rather spend the rest of his life in jail or be executed for murder rather than suffer more abuse by the police.

2) How did David Kofoed find a microscopic bit of blood in a car that had nothing to do with the murders? It appears that Kofoed planted this blood in order to give the police the evidence that they needed to guarantee a conviction. David Kofoed was arrested, but instead of having a trial by jury, Judge Randall Rehmeier convicted Kofoed of tampering with evidence. It's important to note that it's very difficult for the American police to get somebody put in jail because our court system demands phenomenal evidence, but Judge Rehmeier had no trouble convicting Kofoed. Is that because Kofoed truly is a danger to America? Or is Rehmeier the most dishonest?

Before I discuss these issues, consider a similar type of situation: people who deliberately hurt themselves.

On 30 August 2010, a 28-year-old woman, Bethany Storro, was on a public sidewalk in the city of Vancouver, Washington when a black woman walked up to her and said: "Hey, pretty little girl, want to take a drink of this?" That black woman then tossed a cup of acid in her face. It reminded me of the attack suffered by Katie Piper, except that the injuries to Bethany Storro were trivial by comparison. It was also trivial compared to the attack on Esperanza Medina.

I wrote about Katie Piper's attack, but something seemed strange about the attack on Storro. Piper had been attacked by her boyfriend, who had a history of psychotic behavior, but Storro was claiming to be a victim of a random act of violence. However, in order for that to be a random act, that means the black woman poured some acid in a cup, and then went out onto the city street and walked around for... what? Hours? Days? And what type of victim was she looking for as she walked around with that cup of acid in her hand? Was she looking for a young, white woman who was alone? Would she have considered throwing the acid into the face of a black woman, or a baby girl, or a white man?

The reaction of the Jews on the Internet seemed a bit peculiar, also. Instead of pointing out how strange this crime was, insulting messages began appearing on the Internet about black people. Were the Jews involved with this attack? Or were they merely trying to take advantage of it by trying to instigate racial fights?

Bethany Storro blamed a black woman for throwing acid on her face.

Mysterious people tried to instigate racial hatred.

A drawing of the woman accused of the attack.

By comparison, Esperanza Medina truly was attacked with acid.

Incidentally, have you considered that there might be a woman who resembles that police sketch of the woman who supposedly threw the acid? Imagine if you lived in that same city, and that you look like the person in the drawing!
 

All dogs of a certain species behave similarly to one another, and all elephants of a certain species behave similar to one another. Likewise, all humans of a certain age, sex, and race behave similar to one another. If black women, or women of any race, had a history of wandering around the city streets with acid - or any weapon - and attacking people at random, then Bethany Storro's accusation would be possible, but how often do women of any race or age behave like this?

People are always developing new crimes and new tricks to avoid getting caught, so there will always be somebody who is the first to do something unique, but we have to be suspicious whenever people are accused of doing something that is extremely unusual.
 

Women do not have a history of randomly attacking people. However, all throughout history we can find people - especially young women! - deliberately hurting themselves or making partial attempts at suicide in order to bring pity to themselves. The American government claims that there are hundreds of thousands of self-inflicted injuries every year. In an interview with the BBC, Princess Diana said that she would deliberately injure herself, also. This article claims that there could be up to 2 million of these people in America, mostly young women. This article lists a few famous people involved with hurting themselves.
 

Some news reports claim that Storro said she wanted to commit suicide, and that when the acid didn't kill her, she decided to take advantage of the situation and get a new face. However, I don't think she was trying to commit suicide. Even a stupid woman could have done a better job at suicide than that.

I think Bethany Storro threw acid in her face because she was very frustrated and unhappy, and she had a temper tantrum to attract the attention of other people. However, her tantrum was so extreme that we have to wonder about the quality of her mind. Her tantrum wasted a lot of people's time, money, and resources. In addition to investigating a crime that never occurred, a lot of people donated money to her, and a lot of people in the medical field spent time trying to help her with her medical problems.

What should society do with people who behave like her? At what point does a tantrum switch from being a "personal" issue to a problem that society has to deal with? At what point does a woman switch from being "unhappy" to a "menace to society"?
 

Bethany Storro is an example of a woman who causes trouble for society because she can't deal with modern life. Imagine if there were millions of women behaving like her on a regular basis! Imagine the police and hospitals dealing with hundreds of these people every day. At what point do we start raising standards for the people we live among?

This concept also applies to the men who have trouble coping with life, such as the men who do nothing about the problems we suffer from. Imagine an extreme example. Imagine a man who has so much trouble dealing with problems that he ignores leaks in submarines, cracks in the wings of an airplane, and children who are screaming for help as they are grabbed by a man in a passing car. At what point does a man switch from being "unable to deal with problems" to a "menace to society"? How about a man who can't cope with the collapse of Building 7? Is that truly a "man"? Or is that a savage who cannot cope with modern life and is inadvertently allowing crime networks to thrive?

    I think the two main reasons are:

   1) They can't handle the stress of interrogation.

Matthew Livers and Jessica Reid are examples of how torture is useless for getting information from people. Most people have a point at which they will say whatever is necessary to stop the torture. The only difference between people is the level of torture they will tolerate. People like Matthew Livers will admit to a murder after only 18 hours of talking, whereas other people have to be physically tortured for years before they will admit to a much less significant crime. What would Matthew Livers have admitted to if he had been tortured? He might have admitted to being the mastermind to the 9/11 attack!

Most news reporters make it appear as if Livers is an ordinary man, and that the police were so abusive that he decided to admit to a murder rather than suffer more of the brutal interrogation. However, I found this report that describes Matthew Livers as "mentally retarded", and this report describes him as "mildly retarded".

Our news media is disgusting!
Most news reporters imply that the police were brutal, and they try to ignore the fact that Matthew Livers was mentally retarded, and that he was having trouble with routine police interrogations. Don't assume that the news reporters are stupid or incompetent. They were deliberately ignoring his mental disorders in order to manipulate us into feeling sorry for him and hating the police. The Jewish crime network is often encouraging us to hate the police and feel sorry for criminals. This is a policy of theirs because they are criminals.
 

The false confessions are not equally distributed among the crimes. Most crimes don't have any false confessions, whereas some crimes have one, and others have hundreds. For example, when Charles Lindbergh's son was kidnapped, more than 200 people supposedly confessed to the kidnapping, and supposedly 500 people confessed to killing Elizabeth Short (Hollywood's "Black Dahlia" murder).

The crimes that get hundreds of false confessions seem to be the crimes conducted by the Jews, and this should lead us to wonder whether the false confessions are promoted by the Jews in order to confuse the police and public. Some of the people making false confessions may have been lunatics who the Jews had bribed or tricked into confessing, and some may have been crazy Jews who agreed to make false confessions simply to help the other Jews.

Learn from the 9/11 attack and the HoloHoax. Specifically, when the Jews commit a crime, they prepare for it by arranging for lots of people to be witnesses to the crime, and by arranging for even more people to be investigators of the crime. Then, as soon as the crime occurs, the phony witnesses come forward to spread slightly inaccurate descriptions about what happened, and later their phony investigators provide slightly inaccurate investigations. With some crimes, they also have people come forward to admit to the crime, thereby adding more confusion.
 

The Jews benefit by creating the impression that the world is full of lunatics who frequently make false accusations. This allows them to dismiss accusations against themselves as being due to crazy people, or due to anti-Semitism. It might help you to understand this concept if you consider what I wrote a few years ago about the organizations that claim that the adults who complain about being molested as a child are often making false accusations as a result of false memories. By promoting the concept that people have false memories, a pedophile can defend himself by claiming that his victim is merely suffering from a false memory.

A lot of Jews are claiming to be "experts" in psychology and human behavior, and those dishonest Jews will use their PhD to intimidate people and defend the pedophile by doing an analysis of the victim and coming to the conclusion that the victim is making false accusations as a result of false memories. Not surprisingly, there are self-proclaimed experts in the subject of false accusations, and they also have organizations, and a lot of these people refer to themselves as Jews. Furthermore, their websites are typical for the criminal Jews; specifically, they have names that use subliminal techniques to fool us into thinking that they are going to tell us "all about" the "truth". For example, the professor/attorney/writer Alan Hirsch has this site: truthaboutfalseconfessions.com/ Another site is: all-about-forensic-psychology.com/false-confessions.html

What makes Alan Hirsch an expert in the subject of false confessions?

The "television Jews" are routinely promoting people that they describe as "experts". The Jews find experts for every subject. There are experts in terrorism, global warming, unemployment, the Holocaust, and even Jesus Christ. They also have experts in false accusations, false confessions, and false memories.

Have you ever wondered who is determining who is an "expert"? Imagine if you were a news reporter and your boss told you to do a report about an event that you knew nothing about, and he told you to interview an "expert" so that the television audience could listen to an intelligent analysis of the event. Where do you find an "expert"? How do you determine who is an expert and who isn't?

There is no nation yet that has any standards or qualifications for people who are described as experts, informed sources, or whistleblowers. Even if some nation were to set standards, and even if they had a committee to pass judgment on who meets the standards, that would not guarantee that the experts were really experts. The Nobel prizes are a good example. A committee of supposedly intelligent scientists give the prizes to scientists who have made some notable intellectual achievements, but it should be obvious that the Jews are using these prizes to promote propaganda.

As of today, an "expert" is anybody who claims to be one. Of course, since people follow crowds rather than individuals, nobody will regard a person as an expert unless he can create the impression that a large group of people regard him as an expert. This illusion is very easy for the Jews to create because they have control of the media. By putting a person on television and referring to him as an "expert", the television audience is fooled into thinking that society has determined that he is an expert, when in reality, he was selected by some disgusting, criminal Jews.

Some people support their claim of being an "expert" by pointing out that they have had "years of experience" in a certain job, or that they have a college education, but as I pointed out in other files, there are lots of people who have had "years of experience" in a particular job, and they're still no good at it. And there are lots of people with college educations that don't know much, and who can't think properly, and who are dishonest.
 

Matthew Livers admitted to murder, but the American court system doesn't consider a person guilty simply because he admits to a crime. Therefore, the police were under pressure to find some physical evidence to back up his confession. This issue reminds me of a question that I remember from my childhood. There are different variations. One of them is something like:

When a person admits that he lied to you, but is now telling you the truth, what should you think?
a) He's telling the truth now.
b) He's lying to now, and he told the truth earlier.

When a person confesses to a crime, society is in a dilemma. Do we trust a person who is confessing to a crime? Do we assume that he is being honest about his dishonest activities? If so, there is no sense in wasting time or money with a trial or a further investigation. Unfortunately, people cannot be trusted, so when a person confesses to a crime, we have to consider the possibility that he is lying to us, and we have to wonder why he might lie. I can think of two primary reasons that people would lie when they confess to a crime.

1) Some people confess to crimes to protect other criminals

A good example is Bernie Madoff, who claims to be solely responsible for taking and losing $50 billion. As I explained here, one man is not capable of collecting and losing that much money, especially when you consider that the banks must keep track of every check and credit card transaction. Therefore, when Matthew Livers confessed to the murder, the police should have wondered if he confessed in order to protect other people who were also involved.
 

2) Mental incompetence

Apparently, Matthew Livers was not trying to protect anybody when he confessed. Rather, he is an example of a person who is too incompetent to handle a routine police investigation. This brings up an interesting issue. What does society do with people who don't have the mental abilities to function in society? Do we make special arrangements for them? Do we treat them differently than "normal" people? If so, this requires that we pass judgment on who among us needs special treatment. How do we make that decision, and who among us will make that decision? Furthermore, what sort of categories do we create for people? Do we have only two categories, namely, "normal", and "substandard"? Or should we have several categories, such as a) mildly incompetent, b) extremely helpless, c) virtually hopeless, and d) total losers?

Our current attitude is to feel sorry for people who have trouble functioning in society, but I think a better policy is to stop feeling sorry for them. We should raise standards for people. Instead of pampering the mentally incompetent, we should sterilize them, and if they are destructive, remove them from society. Feeling sorry for them doesn't help them, and it doesn't help us. Imagine an extreme example. Imagine a person who is so mentally incompetent that he cracks after the first question. I suppose a lot of Americans would feel sorry for the "Underdog" who can't handle one ordinary question from the police, but we are fools to let retards freely mingle among us. The people who can't function properly in modern society should be sterilized and sent to their own city to live. When we allow misfits to live with us, they have a tendency to become criminals, parasites, or lonely, angry, depressed, miserable, antisocial freaks that nobody wants as a friend or neighbor. We are ruining society when we become a mixture of humans and unwanted misfits. Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if we could transport some of our primitive ancestors from a million years ago to our era. Do you think those crude savages with a smaller brain, different posture, and hair all over their bodies would fit into our societies? They wouldn't be able to pronounce the words in our language; they wouldn't fit properly in our chairs; and they would have trouble controlling their emotions around food, material items, and sexual material. Some of them might be able to get a job in television, sales, politics, and pornography, but most of them would likely become criminals or parasites.

Every nation has standards of behavior for its citizens, but we all have very low standards, and all nations are giving special privileges to people who are unusually stupid or mentally ill on the grounds that they don't fully understand what they're doing. For example, when a person is arrested for murder, he will get special treatment if he can convince the court that his mind doesn't function quite right. But why should crazy people get special privileges? Who benefits from this policy? If a person is mentally incompetent, then get him out of society. We shouldn't live with him.
 

I was taught that the American legal system was an improvement over the European system because our system didn't give special treatment to the wealthy people or the people in leadership roles. However, our system isn't "fair"; rather, it simply shifts the bias in favor of the criminals and the mentally incompetent.

The concept of a legal system that is "fair" is ridiculous. A court case is not a mathematical operation that has a definite answer. A court case is a decision; a judgment; an opinion. Therefore, every court case is going to be biased in some manner. When we design a court system, we shouldn't be foolish enough to think that we can design a system that is fair to everybody. Instead, we have to decide who we want to favor.

For example, the American court system allows a person to hide his previous criminal history and his mental disorders, and this gives special treatment to people who are mentally ill and behaved badly. If instead we allow a person to be completely exposed in the trial, and if we can make a determination of his value to society, then we favor the people who are the most useful to society.
 
 

People who are caught smoking marijuana or using heroin are often put in jail. By comparison, George Soros is not even considered to be a criminal by Americans. Soros and other businessmen routinely commit crimes of immense magnitude, but most of the population cannot understand the significance of their crimes, and many people secretly admire them as being "clever businessmen" rather than as "disgusting criminals".

Which is the most serious crime: a) the murder of an ordinary adult or b) the murder of a ordinary baby? Most people become more upset when a baby is murdered, but, from the point of view of the human race, murdering an adult is much more serious. Think of a farmer to understand this. If somebody were to kill a seedling, it would be almost meaningless to the farmer, but killing a mature and productive fruit tree would be significant.

Millions of Americans were glad when Michael Vick was arrested and put in jail for almost 2 years for being involved with dogfights, and I suspect that millions of Americans would love to put people in jail for eating horses, dogs, or cats. By comparison, professors are routinely lying to students about the 9/11 attack, the HoloHoax, and the Apollo moon landing, but most people don't even consider that to be worthy of complaining about. Instead, they spend enormous amounts of money to send their children to college to be educated by these disgusting, dishonest, criminal professors!

We should not design laws according to our emotions, and we should not design laws to appease the sheeple. We have to design laws according to what is best for the human race. A businessman who cheats is much more destructive from the point of view of society than a person who uses heroin. The businessman affects an enormous number of people, and the future of the human race. He is ruining the economic system and the morale of society. Likewise, a teacher who lies to students is more destructive than a man who arranges for dogs to fight with each other.

Most people are upset when a retarded person is murdered, or when the police kill a criminal, but we can't get upset simply because a person has been killed. We have to look at who the person is and why he was killed. For example, consider the issue of criminals who refuse to surrender and cooperate with the police. The Internet has lots of videos that show people running from the police, and often these people cause traffic accidents, and often the police could have stopped the incident simply by killing the person, but instead, the police try to catch these people alive. There is one video in which a policeman is killed as a result of trying to talk a man into putting his gun down. Meanwhile, he and other policemen are standing in front of this man with guns! (I can't find the video, but I think it was from somewhere in Asia.)

When the police are investigating a crime, and when a person refuses to cooperate and instead either threatens the police with a weapon, or runs away from the police, he should be considered as admitting to guilt and convicted of the crime. People who refuse to cooperate should be classified as a potentially dangerous criminal. If the police see an easy way of capturing him, they could do so, but they should be told to be like gardeners and forest rangers. They should be cleansing society of its troublemakers, not risking people's lives in an attempt to catch the criminals alive.

Of course, this policy requires that we have honest policemen, not organized crime gang members. In the world today, it would be dangerous to tell the police to follow this policy, but if we could get the criminals out of our government and police departments, then the police could be told to protect society, not risk our lives by trying to protect criminals.

This brings me to my point that it's much more important to get the criminals out of leadership positions. It's more important that we have honest government officials, sheriffs, professors, and businessmen than to worry about somebody smoking marijuana or eating a dog.

Furthermore, a person who commits a "small" crime is not necessarily better than a person who commits a "big" crime. For example, a person who shoplifts is not necessarily better than a person who kidnaps children for sale as sex slaves. Rather, the shoplifter may be an idiot who simply couldn't think of any other crime to commit, and none of the crime networks may have wanted him as a member. From the point of view of society, an idiot who is a criminal is not better than an "ordinary" criminal. Actually, the stupid criminal could be described as having two problems; namely, stupidity, and criminal behavior. We don't need more idiots, and we don't need more criminals.
 

Our legal system focuses on whether a person has committed a crime, but I think a more useful legal system would be less concerned about whether a crime has been committed and more concerned about the effect the person has on society. The primary purpose of a trial should be to determine whether we want the person living with us. We should be looking at the person and his value to society. We shouldn't be worried about the seriousness of his crimes, or whether he actually committed the crime. With this type of a legal system, we can have people arrested even if they never violated any law. This allows us to remove people simply because we don't want them living with us, even if they have technically obeyed every law.

If you wonder why I propose a legal system that allows "honest" people to be arrested, I've given some examples of how businessmen are abusing us all the time, but they are technically obeying the law so we can't do anything about it. For example, about 100 years ago, some businessmen were putting addictive drugs into medicines. This was technically legal at the time. People responded by passing laws against it. The businessmen didn't become better businessmen, however. Rather, they simply switched to deceiving people in some other manner. This situation is still occurring. For example, recently the credit card companies were told to stop abusing people with interest rates, and so now they're doing other things to raise money.

What we are doing with businessmen could be described as "playing cat and mouse games". These businessmen are technically obeying the law, but I think we should design a legal system that allows us to arrest them anyway. Our court system and police should have a similar attitude as gardeners. We shouldn't have to wait for a person to violate a "serious" law in order to remove him from society. A society should be able to analyze everybody at any time and pass judgment on whether we want them living with us. We shouldn't tolerate people who are abusive, even if they are obeying the law. Nobody should have the right to live with us. It should be a privilege. With this attitude, we can remove people simply because we don't want them living with us.

We shouldn't have to be constantly watching businessmen and creating new laws to stop them from abusing us. We don't have to tolerate abuse from anybody! People in leadership positions should be providing us with guidance and impressing us with their ability to improve society, and if they cannot do their job properly, then they should be removed from leadership positions, and if they are abusing us, they should be removed from society. Don't be intimidated into thinking that we owe abusive people the right to live with us.

My concept of a legal system that allows honest people to be arrested and evicted from society simply because we don't like them could be incredibly useful, but it can also be incredibly dangerous. It all depends upon the quality of people in our society. As I described in other documents, such as this, an organization can only be as good as its members. If we were to implement this type of legal system in America right now, it would destroy this nation. America is dominated by criminals, so it would be a disaster to give these freaks the authority to arrest honest people and pass judgment on whether they belong in society.

How is it possible to create a society in which the government has this type of authority? It's very important that you understand that if you want a better society, then you must have better people. As I've mentioned before, if you have trouble with these concepts, consider it on a smaller scale. Consider how this concept applies to an orchestra, or a sports team, or a business. For example, the music that is produced by an orchestra depends upon the musicians. If you want them to produce better music, then you need to give them better instruments and better training, and if they already have proper instruments and training, then the only way to improve the music is to replace the musicians with more talented musicians.

Likewise, if you own a small engineering company, the products you develop depend upon the people in your business. If you want them to produce better products, then you need to provide them with better tools and training. Once you've provided them with adequate tools and training, the only way to improve your company is to start replacing the people with more talented engineers.

Now apply this concept to the level of a city, or a nation. If you want a nation to become better, then the people have to behave in a better manner. We can improve their behavior with education and training, but after we do that, the only way to improve society is to start removing the people who are causing trouble.

It's possible that there are not enough humans with the ability to live in the type of society that I'm suggesting. The majority of people may simply be too much like animals. The human mind may need to evolve for a few more million years before we're capable of setting up a society in which people can trust one another.
 

Even though we are not likely to be able to create a truly peaceful, honest world, I think we can bring significant improvements to the world. At the moment, no nation has any sensible standards at all, and nations everywhere are dominated by crime networks. We cannot create a "perfect" world, but we can certainly improve upon the ridiculous situation that we have right now. We can certainly find professors who are more honest, and government officials who are more competent.

So, don't worry about achieving perfection. If we can bring improvements, we are doing a lot. And we can certainly improve upon what we have right now.

The issue of David Kofoed fabricating evidence in order to convict Livers and Sanford is another example of how our legal system - and our attitudes towards life - are crude and need to be updated. We don't want policemen fabricating evidence or altering it, but it's important to note that Kofoed is accused of planting evidence after Matthew Livers had confessed to the murder. If Livers had been tortured into confessing, then Kofoed could be accused of setting up a possibly innocent man, but there is no evidence that Livers was tortured. Therefore, Kofoed was not planting evidence to set up an innocent man. Rather, he was helping the police to convict a man who voluntarily confessed to a murder.

I would say this type of crime is equivalent to a person who doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign in the middle of the desert during the day when he can clearly see that nobody is anywhere near the intersection. Although technically the person is required to come to a complete stop, what difference does it make if he does not?

Furthermore, compare Kofoed's "crime" to some of the other crimes that are occurring. For example, look at all of the people in our media, school system, and legal system who are deliberately lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the World Wars, the Apollo moon landing, the attack on the USS Liberty, and possibly a lot of other crimes that we don't even know about yet. And consider the crimes that are occurring in our banking and financial system.

I haven't investigated the accusations of police fabricating evidence, but the few cases that I am aware of seem to be situations in which the police seem frustrated with our legal system and are trying to get rid of people who are truly a menace to society. My conclusion is that the policemen that the Jews complain about are the policemen that the Jews are afraid of. By comparison, the policemen who are working with the criminal Jewish network never get in trouble, and the media never exposes or complains about them.

For example, consider the policemen who arrested Christopher Bollyn. In addition to committing a crime by arresting him, they also illegally destroyed the video from their dashboard camera so that nobody could see what actually happened. Those policemen committed a much more serious crime than David Kofoed. However, the television show 20/20 will never investigate the dishonest arrest of Christopher Bollyn, and none of the news reporters are going to accuse any of the policemen of committing a crime, and none of the reporters will expose the trial as a fraud.

When your house is burning down, and you find the fire department is focusing on removing a dirty spot on your carpet, you would wonder why they have such absurd priorities. Likewise, we ought to wonder why the Jews are focusing on David Kofoed when we have so many incredible crimes going on around us.

I don't know David Kofoed, and so it's possible that he's actually working with the criminal Jews, but my point is that we should wonder why the media is focusing on him, and we should also take a serious look at Judge Randall Rehmeier and wonder why he was so eager to convict Kofoed. Why doesn't Judge Rehmeier show any eagerness in convicting school teachers and news reporters who lie about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing? Why doesn't he show any interest in convicting people involved with the sex slave industry or the raping of orphan boys?
 

It's possible that one reason the Jews decided to give the arrest of Matthew Livers so much publicity is because they noticed a lot of people making remarks that even if Livers and his cousin are innocent of the murders, they are unwanted retards who should be removed from society. This would explain why the Jews have been trying to ignore his retardation, bring him pity, encourage the hatred of the police, and put David Kofoed in jail. I think this attitude of cleaning society of unwanted people frightens both criminals and the people who are irritating, parasitic, and unwanted.

Imagine if we had a society in which we could remove people simply because we didn't want them living with us. Imagine a society in which nobody is allowed to keep their history a secret. Consider how many people might be removed from society, and how many of them would be government officials, lawyers, professors, and policemen. And consider that if we were allowed to investigate the lives of people such as Oksana Grigorieva, we might come to the conclusion that she's a human version of a flea, and we want her removed, also.

It's important to note that the criminals, parasites, religious fanatics, and obnoxious freaks want to live with those of us who are responsible, honest, nicely behaved, and contribute to society. However, there is no rule of the universe that requires we suffer their abuse, or that we do them any favors at all. We shouldn't put up with misfits, not even the religious fanatics. There is no rule that says we must tolerate them traveling through our neighborhoods to push their religion, and we don't have to listen to their idiotic complaints about evolution or stem cell research.

The Amish, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and other religious fanatics should have separate cities. We are fools to allow them to live among us; it's like mixing oil with water. If it turns out that they have trouble taking care of themselves, that is their problem. We have to stop feeling sorry for losers.

Likewise, we don't have to tolerate people who want toilet humor and constant sexual titillation. They can live among themselves, also. The people who are destructive, parasitic, and unwanted are constantly pushing the attitude that we should feel sorry for "Underdogs" and the "disadvantaged", and that we should give criminals a second chance, and then a third chance, and then a fourth chance. They are also constantly promoting the concept of inheritances, nepotism, and monarchies. They don't want to earn their position in life. They also tell us that we should not lose our temper when people abuse us; that we should treat criminals in the manner that we want to be treated. They also promote the concept that we should respect people simply because of their job title, or because they were born into a certain family, or because they have a college diploma, or a Nobel Prize. We are fools to allow these parasites and criminals to impose their disgusting philosophy on us.

We have to stop feeling sorry for people who abuse us. We have to stop supporting the attitude that we can cure a badly behaved person by punishing him briefly. We should be able to remove people from society simply because we don't like them. The people who are dangerous should be exiled to special cities, or executed, and the people who are not dangerous but are simply unwanted need to be sent to their own city, also.
 

This concept is especially important in regards to businessmen. They are frequently behaving in disgusting, abusive manners that are technically legal. For a trivial example, in September 2010, Anheuser Bush gave away half a million free samples of Budweiser beer. Providing samples of an item makes sense when a business is offering a new product that people have a tendency to resist, but the people who drink beer already know about Budweiser. This was not an attempt to inform people about a new product. This is just another attempt to manipulate people. This particular example seems trivial, but my point is that these businessmen are spending their time - and being paid very highly for it - trying to figure out ways to manipulate us, they are not spending their time looking for ways to improve society. The difference might be subtle, but it's very significant.

People in leadership positions should be looking for ways to improve society; they should not be looking for ways to manipulate us as if we are circus animals or pawns in a chess game. We need citizens who can differentiate between a leader who provides guidance, and a con artist who deceives and manipulates.

Most of the people in leadership positions today are not leaders. They are abusive, selfish, manipulative criminals and con artists. They are manipulating children into desiring certain products, and they are creating sexually stimulating advertisements for children, and they have convinced adult women that they need diamonds, or breast implants, or Botox injections. Businesses should not manipulate us. As I described in lots of other articles, businesses should compete with one another in order to inspire everybody to look for ways of improving society. Our jobs should benefit society, not make a small number of people very wealthy, or to manipulate customers. We need to shift the emphasis from sales to improving society. We should not be pawns in an economic game between aggressive, selfish, manipulative, deceptive businessmen. We have allowed a network of freaks to get control of our society. Our businessmen are savages, not advanced humans.

A lot of people are disgusted with the behavior of businessmen, and their reaction is to devise new laws to control the abuse. But that policy doesn't work. We have to stop playing this idiotic "cat and mouse game" with businessmen. We should stop thinking of them as "clever" and start realizing that they are disgusting, abusive freaks who are interfering with the purpose of an economic system.
 

Do we exist simply to provide criminals, parasites, and other freaks with a nicer life than they would have if they were living by themselves? Do we exist simply to provide Oksana Grigorieva with material items or fame? Do we exist simply to provide Jews with a better society than they can provide for themselves? Do we live merely to provide George Soros or Bill Gates with mansions? What do we owe either of those men? Do we owe any human a mansion? Do we owe any human a yacht? The Apple company recently created the world's most expensive cell phone; it has diamonds all around it. Why do we make these products? How does anybody benefit from this? Why shouldn't we treat everybody in a more equal manner? Why not make everybody earn their position? And why not demand that everybody behave in an honest and respectable manner, and if they can't, then get them out of society!

We don't owe anybody anything. We can live with who we want to live with, and we can work with who we want to work with. Don't let parasitic or abusive people intimidate you or pressure you into feeling that you owe them something. You don't owe them anything.

We have parasites, criminals, and freaks trying to live among us because they like what we offer. They like the way we treat them; they like our cities; they like our food; etc. They want what we have, but we don't owe them anything. We don't have to live with them or put up with their abuse. And we don't need any evidence that they have committed a crime. We can simply tell them, "Get out of our society. We don't want you."

Furthermore, don't feel as if you need to give special treatment to somebody's children. We should eliminate the concepts of monarchies, inheritances, and nepotism. Allowing a child to inherit his position in life is equivalent to allowing him to kidnap a woman and use her as a wife. Let every man earn his wife and his position in life. Don't allow people to intimidate you into thinking that they deserve special treatment because their parents were "special".

The two teenagers, Jessica Reid and Gregory Fester, who murdered that couple in Nebraska were wandering around the nation, and they were surviving by stealing items and burglarizing houses. Imagine this occurring on a smaller scale. Imagine a business discovers that a family is living inside one of their warehouses, but nobody knows who they are, where they came from, or how they get their food or other supplies. Furthermore, imagine that the employees of the business occasionally notice that items mysteriously disappear once in a while, and that sometimes an employee is mysteriously murdered, raped, or robbed. No business would tolerate this situation, and you wouldn't allow nomadic people to live in your yard or inside your home. So why should large organizations, such as cities or nations, tolerate nomadic people?

Would it surprise you to learn that the people who are (or were) living inside this industrial structure are posting propaganda on Rumor Mill News?

We are allowing homeless and nomadic people all over our nation. Some live in automobiles, others sleep on the sidewalks, some set up homes inside of industrial structures, and some sleep on couches in other people's homes. We don't know how many homeless people there are, and we don't even know if they are citizens of our nation or foreigners who are in the country illegally. We don't know how many of them are surviving through charities, and how many are surviving from crime. Some of them are raising families, but we don't know how many children are being born to homeless and nomadic people.

The ability of nomadic people to wander around while committing crimes is more justification for the concept I mentioned 23_June 2010 when I wrote that we shouldn't need a census in this modern era because everybody should be listed in a computer database. We should know of everybody we live with, and we should be able to determine where they are, and what they are doing for a living. It shouldn't be possible for people to secretly wander around the nation, and secretly sell items, and secretly purchase food, bullets, guns, and other supplies.

We should consider a "society", a "nation", and a "city" as just a very large family. We are fools to allow people to intimidate us into thinking that they have a right to secretly live among us, and that they have a right to purchase and sell items in a secretive manner. The people in a modern society are analogous to gears in a machine. We are dependent upon one another for survival. Therefore, we have a responsibility to society to help ensure that all of the gears are working properly, and working for the good of society. We have a responsibility to know where and how other people are getting their money, items, and food.
 

The media is dominated by people who encourage us to feel sorry for retards, homeless people, criminals, and wandering packs of gypsies. The word gypsy is not very specific, but I'll use the word to represent the small groups of people who don't have any permanent homes, so they wander around just like our nomadic ancestors were doing thousands of years ago. The people who dominate the media promote the philosophy that pirates, burglars, rapists, and gypsies are just ordinary people who have chosen a different lifestyle, or who became criminals after being abused by aristocrats or corrupt policemen. For example, one of the characters in Victor Hugo's book, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, is Esmeralda, a gypsy who is depicted as honest, adorable, and talented. The book was written in 1831. The Disney company produced a version as a cartoon, thereby spreading this propaganda to children.

Gypsies are so adorable!

Most people seem to regard cartoons as harmless entertainment, but I think we need to seriously consider the effect of raising children on movies, songs, and television shows that promote criminal behavior, toilet humor, sarcastic comments, pouting, tantrums, and other undesirable behavior. I think the freaks that dominate our media are a bad influence on children. The reason I say this is because I can look at my own life and see their bad influence. For example, when I was a child, there was a time when my mother told me and my brothers to stop responding to her with "smartass" remarks. I don't remember how old I was, perhaps 12 to 14, but I was old enough that her complaint made me think, and it occurred to me that I was picking up this attitude from the television shows. Now that I'm older I can see that we had picked up a lot of bad attitudes, such as feminism, and the idea that Bonnie and Clyde were an adorable couple who simply decided to rob banks for a living, and that pirates were wonderful men.
 

The homeless Russian Jew who had been calling me since 2004 finally died in September 2010. I got a phone call from his ex-wife, Rhonda, who told me that she was calling all of the phone numbers she found on Fred's telephone statement to let everybody know that Fred had died.

Fred is an example of a homeless person who doesn't contribute anything to society, and I suspect that he was involved in crime. Although he had a few jobs during his life, he spent most of his life on donations, and he filed this case with Social Security to get more benefits than he was otherwise going to be given. He was also a nuisance to people because he would use the bathrooms of restaurants, supermarkets, and other businesses to do his shaving and cleaning. The homeless people don't enjoy their living conditions, and we don't enjoy having them living like this either, so why do we continue to ignore this issue?

By the way, as I mentioned here, Fred started every phone conversation with "How Are You?" Somebody I talk to once in a while said "How Are You?" to me as a joke on the phone, and he wondered if he sounded like Fred, and so I decided to record Fred so that the world could hear him. I managed to record him twice in August 2010. I put both excerpts in this short audio file. The first excerpt is when he's in his "normal" condition and is trying to show enthusiasm, and in the second excerpt he is tired and merely saying the words but without any meaning. This is the only tribute I'm going to give to Fred, aside from "Good Riddance!" Fred-15Aug-and-21Aug2010-How-Are-You.mp3   16 Kbytes

“How are you?”

During the past few centuries, a lot of people have figured out how to avoid both work and homelessness. They create organizations that beg for donations, such as think tanks, charities, religions, truth groups, self-help groups, and watchdog agencies. Some of these groups do a bit of useful work once in a while, which fools people into thinking that they are beneficial, but considering how much money they receive, and how little they do return, they are better classified as glorified beggars, or as con artists. These people are just educated versions of Fred Averbach.

The "think tanks" are especially amusing - or disgusting! - because they claim to be organizations of the most intelligent and educated people on the planet, but where is the result of all of their intelligent thinking? Furthermore, most (or all?) of the think tanks, truth groups, and other organizations that beg for donations are also promoting an amazing amount of propaganda about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the World Wars, and Israel. This identifies them as members of, or under the control of, the Jewish crime network. All of these organizations need to be investigated.

Kevin Carter, who took the upper photograph (hi-res here), said that he waited about 20 minutes for the vulture to spread its wings, thereby making a more interesting photo, but the vulture sat motionless as it waited for the girl to die, so Carter gave up and chased away the vulture. This photo became very famous. There are hundreds of copies on the Internet and in printed publications. However, it seems that the reason the photo became famous is because a lot of people were angry at Carter. For example, somebody wrote: "The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering, might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene." It's important to notice that nobody complains about Carter's other photos. For example, the lower photo never became famous, and nobody complains that Carter should have helped the child. Nobody even cares how long Carter waited for a photo of somebody walking past the child.

What is the difference between ignoring a homeless child in our streets, and ignoring a homeless child who is being watched by a vulture? What difference does it make if a child dies in a desert and is then eaten by a vulture, or whether he dies in our city and is then tossed in a grave by city workers where the child is eaten by worms and bacteria? Why do so many people care about a little girl being watched by a vulture, but not about any of the millions of people who are dying in our streets?
 

Imagine that Kevin Carter had killed that little girl, and then he moved back and waited for the vulture to eat the child, and then he took more photos. Or what if Carter had killed that homeless child who is crawling on the sidewalk, and then took a photo of the dead child?

What is murder? If Carter had killed that young girl, would he have "murdered" a child, or would he have been showing signs of tremendous "compassion" by putting a suffering child out of her misery and providing a hungry vulture with a meal? If a person were to kill an unwanted orphan who's being raped repeatedly by government officials at their perverted sex orgies, would he be murdering a child? Or would he be putting a miserable, unwanted child out of its misery?

By the way, nobody knows what happened to that girl in Carter's photograph, so it's possible that after a few more hours or days of pain, suffering, hunger, loneliness, and misery, she finally died. It's also possible that a dog or other animal discovered her and ate her while she was alive. However, nobody cares what happened to that young girl.

The people who criticize Carter are not compassionate. They don't care if that girl suffered a slow, miserable death. They're not doing anything to help us understand or reduce any of the suffering in the world. Rather, they're behaving like a stupid animal that has discovered how to stimulate itself. They are doing mental masturbation.

“Gather around me! There's plenty of room for everybody! I am the standard to judge all humans! And I know everything about life!” “Kevin Carter was a terrible person. I would have chased that vulture away, immediately! I'm better than Kevin Carter. I can't stand to see anybody suffer. I love all people.” “I especially love children, and I love animals, also. I'm so special. I'm so wonderful. I'm so exciting... oh my god! I can't hardly stand it! I'm so exciting, so wonderful, sooooo special! Oh my, ohhhhh, oh my god!”

Which path do you want the human race to follow? When an old person is dying and asks to be put out of his misery, is the person who helps with the euthanasia a "murderer"? Or a "compassionate" person? If the police were to execute the homeless people, would they be murdering innocent humans? Or putting people out of their misery?

Most of our relatives and neighbors do absolutely nothing to help society or stop crime, and as a result, they are allowing phenomenal levels of corruption. When we try to expose the corruption, they try to stop us from talking about the crimes! This is worse than doing nothing. If they would merely do nothing, then they would allow us to talk, but they are suppressing us when we bring the issues up in public. They are like balls and chains around our legs.

It is acceptable to live with sheeple, but they should not be allowed to influence society. They are equivalent to dogs, cattle, and monkeys. We must raise standards for the people who influence society, and get into leadership positions. The sheeple are mentally incompetent and they should be told to keep their mouth shut on the grounds that they can't cope with life. They may follow the law, but they are not the innocent, sweet creatures that they claim to be.

Furthermore, the ordinary people can be dangerous because they are easily manipulated by crime networks. A good example is the 9/11 attack. The sheeple are being used by Jews like a dog to attack Muslims, and lots of decent people that the Jews refer to as Holocaust Deniers, anti-Semites, Nazis, and conspiracy theorists, including me and you. These "attack dogs" are a threat to the entire human race.

 The sheeple tolerate unbelievable abuse

In October 2010, a new television show appeared on CNN; "Parker Spitzer". In this talk show, the two hosts are Eliot Spitzer, a dishonest Jewish lawyer who was governor of New York, and Kathleen Parker, a dishonest news reporter who won the Pulitzer Prize, and who I criticized in my video about 9/11 as one of the journalists who is trying to cover up the 9/11 attack. The television show is not popular, but this is another example of how the Jews are promoting criminals as leaders, and nobody complains about it.

Everybody on television, and all of our sheriffs, professors, government officials, Nobel Prize winners, and virtually everybody else in a position of leadership is lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and many other crimes. Regardless of whether these people are lying to us because they want to, or because they're afraid to tell the truth, it's important to note that the ordinary people don't care! The sheeple don't demand higher quality people in leadership positions. Don't dismiss this as meaningless. You should wonder, how extreme does the situation have to be before the sheeple complain?

For example, what if the Jews started a television talk show called "The FritzOff Show" in which the hosts are Josef Fritzl and Bernie Madoff? Or what if Roman Polanski was hired as the principal of an elementary school, or was elected as sheriff of your city?

Businesses have quality control inspectors to eliminate defective products, but we don't do this with humans. We allow almost everybody to vote, and we have no standards of quality for people who become business executives, news reporters, school officials, teachers, or sheriffs. The only way we are going to improve the world is to start improving the quality of the people who influence the world. We must raise standards for people in influential positions. The sheeple must be suppressed.

We also allow everybody to reproduce, regardless of their mental and physical qualities, and they can reproduce as often as they want, even if they have no desire to take care of their children, and even if they have no ability to take care of the children. We don't even care if people are raising the children that are the result of rape or prostitution. There is absolutely no concern right now about the quality of the children that they produce.

The ordinary people are not the innocent, sweet, wonderful creatures that they claim to be. If everybody in the world was like you and me, the entire world would be able to look at the evidence that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack. There would be no resistance to this information anywhere in the world. The Jewish crime network would've been exposed and eliminated long ago. Furthermore, the organized gangs of other races, such as the Japanese gangs, and the Chinese gangs, would have been exposed and eliminated. So, why are these gangs continuing to grow and thrive? The reason is simply because the majority of people are either ignoring the crime and corruption, or they are assisting with it. The ordinary people are not innocent. People who ignore or assist crimes are equivalent to people who ignore or assist a fire in your neighborhood. There's nothing adorable about this behavior. And there is nothing innocent about it either. It's disgusting animal behavior.

“We must vote in every election. We must pick the lesser of the evils.” “It says so right here in this newspaper article. I am highly educated, and I have a college diploma!”

The elections are coming up, so I wanted to emphasize a concept that I've mentioned in other files (especially in Part_2 of my Social Technology articles). I have never voted, and I'm not going to vote in the upcoming election, and I have been insulted all my life by the people who vote. Most people have been fooled into thinking that they must vote for one of the candidates.

The Jews encourage people to follow the philosophy of voting for the "lesser of the evils" because they don't want people to realize that the most sensible policy for voters is the same policy that businesses follow; namely, when none of the candidates are acceptable, we should dismiss all of them and interview a new group of candidates.

Some people don't have the intelligence to understand this concept, and some people can understand it but they don't have the emotional strength to demand new candidates. The end result is that different factions of Jews are selecting candidates for us. The voters are not "selecting leaders"; rather, they are "selecting between the criminals" that the different groups of Jews provide for us. The voters are just pawns in a fight among Jews for control of us. Here are some important concepts to keep in mind before you bother to vote:

1) Our battle is with a small crime network.
Those of us who are fighting the Jewish crime network are small percentage of the population. We are surrounded by sheeple. We cannot change the world simply by voting because there are not enough of us to get honest candidates elected. All we can do by voting is play some minor role in selecting which criminal is elected. Even though some criminals might be "the lesser of the evils", we shouldn't worry about the sheeple and their disgusting government.

2) A King has no power unless we obey his orders.
If we can find enough people to work together to fight this crime network, then it doesn't matter who the sheeple elect. When the criminals try to start a war with Iran, for example, we should secretly resist, expose, or sabotage their attempts. Notice that Rahm Emanuel failed in Washington DC, and now he is going back to Chicago. If there are enough respectable people in Chicago to secretly resist, expose, and sabotage him, it won't matter whether the sheeple elect him as Chicago's mayor.

Several decades ago, when people would take photographic film to a company to be developed, I had a Jewish boss, and I can't remember the details, but he gave me a roll of film and told me to take it to the film developer and lie to them so that he could avoid paying about $15 for some mistake he had made. I suppose he didn't have much confidence in his ability to lie. So I took the film to the film developer, and then I quietly told the sales clerk what he asked me to do. She then called him and made up some excuse as to how they were going to have to charge him regardless. I don't think he ever figured out that I sabotaged him.

Actually, I sabotaged that Jew quite a few times. One incident I found particularly amusing was when he tried to steal a sample from a Jewish salesman who was showing a variety of products. When the salesman wasn't looking, the Jew put one of the products on the floor behind the counter that he was sitting at. I happened to have seen him do this, and so I waited for the salesman to get ready to leave. As he was packing up his items, I casually walked behind the counter, and then I pretended to notice the item, and so I picked it up and said to the salesman, "Oh, here, you forgot this!" The expressions on both of their faces were amusing. I eventually came to the conclusion that many Jews are accustomed to cheating and being cheated, and so they considered "crime" as "routine business". They seemed to be watching out for it all the time. They seemed to consider a victim of their crime to be a "sucker" or a "fool", not a "victim". And they considered a successful criminal to be "clever", not a "criminal".

For example, several decades ago I heard a Jewish man boast that his boss was a "clever businessman." He told us that his boss had ordered some products from a company, and after UPS delivered the package, he hid the package in the basement. This was before UPS was tracking all packages. A few weeks later he called the company and complained that he never received the package, and that customers were asking for the items. The company apologized and quickly sent a duplicate shipment for free. It is because of these "clever businessmen" that UPS wants to track all of its packages.

Of course, in my case, it was safe and amusing to sabotage the Jew, but sabotaging a crime network is very risky, and you have to be careful because you don't know who is working for the network. However, if you look for ways to secretly sabotage Rahm Emanuel and the other criminals, you might find a few safe opportunities.

3) Cheating is widespread during the elections.
There is a lot of evidence that cheating is occurring during every election, so we might have some effect over an election if some people could figure out who is doing the cheating, and then finding ways to sabotage or expose them, or take advantage of it in some manner.

John Karr confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey. However, unlike Matthew Livers, who confessed only after an interrogation, John Karr spent four years discussing JonBenet Ramsey via e-mail with Michael Tracey, a university professor who was producing documentaries about her murder. The police learned of Karr after Tracey gave them copies of the e-mail messages. When the police eventually figured out where Karr was living and arrested him, he confessed to the murder without any apparent reluctance.

As I pointed out earlier, a confession is not enough to convict a person in the American legal system. The police need some physical evidence, and in this case they had what they assumed was a DNA sample of the murderer, so they compared it to John Karr's DNA, but it didn't match, so they released him. As of today, he is living in America and undergoing hormone treatment to become a woman. He calls himself Alexis Valoran Reich.

If we were using the type of legal system I'm proposing, then we wouldn't care whether he killed JonBenet Ramsey. We would instead analyze this man from the point of view of whether we want him living with us. For example, his mother supposedly tried to burn him alive when he was a baby because she thought he was possessed by demons. Was she mentally ill? If so, she would be a good example of why we shouldn't allow mentally ill people to reproduce.

When John Karr was 20 years old, he married a 13-year-old girl, but that marriage didn't last very long and they didn't have any children. Later he married a 16-year-old girl, and they had three sons. A lot of people consider John Karr to be mentally ill, but they don't care that he has children, and they don't care how many children he has, or whether any of his children are mentally ill, also. Is this your idea of a responsible group of people? I think a responsible society would be concerned about the mental health of their next generation.
 

The criminal Jews exploit miserable, lonely, unhappy, and mentally ill people. For example, consider the possibility that Professor Michael Tracey is working with the crime network that was responsible for JonBenet Ramsey's death, and that he is only pretending to be interested in solving the case. This wolf in sheep's clothing trick is very useful to a crime network. By setting somebody up as an investigator of a crime, people with information about the crime may contact him, and this allows the crime network to discover who they need to kill, blackmail, bribe, or threaten. Also, mentally ill people may contact these wolves in sheep's clothing, and a crime network can exploit these mentally ill people in a variety of ways, such as setting them up to take the blame for the crime.

Although I didn't investigate the JonBenet Ramsey case, my personal suspicion is that she was involved in a gigantic, pedophile network that is dominated by Jews, and that Professor Tracey is involved with it. I don't know what is going on with the JonBenet Ramsey case, but I wouldn't trust any of the "investigators". Take a look at the investigators of 9/11 and the Holocaust. You would be foolish to trust any of them, or to contact them.

I also consider it suspicious that after the DNA test showed that John Karr was not the murderer, some other charges in California for possession of child pornography were dropped about six weeks after the investigators lost the computer that they had taken from him. It seems to me that he was just another mentally ill loser, like Lee Harvey Oswald, and in return for being a good circus seal, they dropped other charges against him.
By the way, when the police "lose" a computer and other important pieces of evidence that they are saving for crimes, where do these items eventually end up? Are they floating in the Pacific Ocean where all those plastic bags are accumulating?
 

Crime networks have been exploiting mentally ill and unhappy people for centuries for money, sex, and crimes. They take advantage of people's inability to understand gambling and high interest rates, and they exploit people's cravings for drugs, alcohol, and sex. However, as of today, no society cares that mentally ill people are being exploited.

We have to make a distinction between when we are allowing a person to do what he pleases, and when we are protecting society from a crime network. For example, if a "normal" person wants to have a glass of wine or make a bet on a football game, we don't have to be concerned because a "normal" person can control himself. However, when crime networks exploit the stupid and mentally ill people with alcohol, loans, gambling, prostitution, and drugs, we must get involved because if we do nothing, we allow a crime network to grow and thrive.

We are allowing organized religions, think tanks, and charities of all types to suck the blood of the mentally incompetent people, and this is allowing these disgusting, criminal, parasitic organizations to grow and thrive. They can use their money to purchase businesses, land, and influence elections. We are fools to allow this exploitation to occur in our society. You wouldn't allow criminals to exploit the children within your family, would you?

Life today is complicated, and it's getting more complicated every century. We need people in leadership positions who can deal with these complexities, and we need citizens who are above the level of a stupid animal. Mentally ill people are a danger to society today because they can't cope with life, and they are easily exploited by criminals. By allowing mentally ill people to live among us, and by allowing crime networks to exploit them, we are allowing crime networks to feed off of them and grow. We have to deal with the mentally ill people, and/or the crime networks.
 

It's understandable that children, people from previous eras, and people without much of an education would believe the propaganda of the organized religions. However, an adult who has grown up in a modern society has access to enough information to be able to figure out that the organized religions are a scam.

The Christian religion may be the most ridiculous because it is based on the Bible, but the Bible is so vague and confusing that nobody can make sense of it. It should be obvious that it's just a collection of religious writings from centuries ago. In fact, there are sections of the Bible that repeat themselves because they are describing the same story but as told by different people. Unfortunately, the adults who follow Christianity don't understand this. They can see that the Bible is confusing, but they believe that they can ignore the sections they don't like, and fill in the details as they please.

You can visualize the Christians as fools who are playing with a children's coloring book. They ignore the pages they don't like or understand, and they add color to the pages in the manner that pleases them the most. They end up with a religion that they like, but they don't realize that they like their religion because they just filled in the details in the manner that appeals to them. They are simply stimulating themselves. They are not following the Bible or the teachings of Jesus because they have no idea what the Bible says, or what Jesus said.

“Give Jesus the qualities that you like!”

“I believe Jesus had blue eyes, wants us to eat fish on Friday, walked on water, and...”

“I believe Jesus had brown eyes and was King of the Jews, and I believe in evolution...”

It's acceptable for people to have a belief in God or Jesus, but we are allowing organizations to make money from the people who don't want to think, or who are not very good at thinking, and we are also allowing these organized religions to spread propaganda about supporting Israel and hating Muslims.

Control your cravings to be a mommy or a daddy
  

Have you ever looked into a nest of baby birds? At least some species of birds are so incredibly stupid that they can't distinguish between a human and their own mother. Therefore, if you look into their nest, or put your finger near them, they will think that you are their mother, and they will open their mouth in response. They are biological robots who see an object, assume it is their mother, and then open their mouth. They don't understand what they're doing. They simply do it. Likewise, the mother, when she sees the open mouth, is stimulated by the shape, the color, and the chirping. She then regurgitates food into the baby's mouth.

It's important to understand animal behavior because humans are the same as animals. When a female adult human is near a human baby, even if it's not her own baby, she is stimulated by the visual appearance, motions, sound, and smell of the baby. Adult men are stimulated by older children. Understanding this is important because when an adult is accused of crimes, they will often behave in a child-like manner, and this stimulates our emotions to be a mommy or daddy. We then respond by wanting to take care of that helpless criminal, rather than be disgusted by him and evict him from society. And it's important to notice that this is a technique the Jews have been using for centuries. Don't let these criminals manipulate you!

“I'm a sweet, innocent Jew! We have been abused for thousands of years by anti-Semites. I don't think I can hold back the tears much longer. Do you have a tissue? I'm so sorry if I caused any trouble. Please forgive me. I didn't understand what I was doing. Will you be my mommy? Please? I love you!”

We have strong emotions to take care of helpless creatures, but this emotion was intended to make us take care of children, not horrible, disgusting, destructive, parasitic adults who simply imitate children. We have to distinguish between a real child and a criminal who simply simulates a child. Don't regurgitate your food to a person simply because he opened his mouth and chirped at you!

It's possible that Liu Xiaobo has accomplished something worthy of a prize, but I suspect that he was given a Nobel Prize simply because some of the people in the Chinese government are starting to realize that the Jews are secretly trying to destroy and control China. I have only skimmed over the descriptions of his "work", and it seems to me that he is the Chinese version of the "liberals" here in America who routinely stage protests to complain about government or corporate "oppression", and who make vague demands for freedom, human rights, and democracy.

All of the people who make vague demands for freedom or democracy, regardless of whether they call themselves liberals or conservatives, seem to be mentally ill. They are not intelligent people with intelligent comments about life. So why would one of these lunatics win a Nobel Prize? My guess is that this is more evidence that the Jewish crime network is failing in China, and the Jews are struggling to get control over the Chinese government.

News reports are claiming that people around the world are putting pressure on the Chinese government to allow "human rights", "democracy", and "freedom", but I suspect that these people are actually working for the Jews, and their true motive is not to help China become "free" but to remove the Chinese leaders who are not under Jewish control.
 

News reports are claiming that a Chinese government official is threatening the nation of Norway to repeal this peace prize or it will damage relations between the two nations, and they quote the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg as fighting back with such stupid remarks as how it "would be negative for China's reputation in the world if they chose to do that".

Is the Nobel prize coming from a Nobel Prize organization or from the people of Norway? If it's coming from an independent committee, then China should be complaining about that committee, not about the people of Norway. Likewise, unless the Prime Minister of Norway and the people of Norway are involved in the selection of the Nobel Peace Prize winners, then the Prime Minister should point out to China that he and his citizens have nothing to do with the prize.

What would you think if an Academy Award was given to a Chinese actress who is in jail in China, and the Chinese government complained that relations with America will deteriorate unless her award is canceled, and Barack Obama comes forward to argue with China? Wouldn't you wonder why American citizens are pawns in a fight over an Academy Award? And wouldn't you wonder why Obama is getting involved rather than pointing out to China that America has no influence over the Academy Awards?
 

It doesn't require much intelligence or education to figure out that the Nobel prizes, the Academy Awards, and most other contests have been infiltrated and dominated by Jews who are giving out these awards for political purposes. I think this fight over the Nobel Prize is a fight between Jews and China.

Other signs that their network is disintegrating

A lot of strange events have been happening, but I haven't bothered to investigate them. However, a glance at some of the headlines suggest to me that the Jewish criminals may be having trouble controlling a growing rebellion in Hollywood, also. For example, there are more mysterious attacks on Angelina Jolie. I don't want to waste my time reading the idiotic articles, so it's possible that I'm misunderstanding them, but quickly glancing at the articles makes them appear to be desperate attempts to hurt her image. For example, she let her eight-year-old son have a sip of wine. If you were a journalist, would you consider that to be "news"? What is wrong with letting a child taste wine, coffee, beer, or anything else? This is an issue that should be discussed by parents, but the media is dominated by people who never have any intelligent comments, unless they plagiarize the material.

There are other news articles complaining about a movie that she's making in Hungary, but I don't want to waste my time reading those idiotic accusations, either. However, those reports caught my attention because of the dam that mysteriously broke in Hungary. Is a rebellion growing in Hungary?

Sean Connery is facing international arrest for some vague and mysterious reason. I don't want to waste my time looking into that issue either, but I wanted to mention it because I think all of these idiotic attacks are signs that the Jews are losing control of people; that people are finally starting to wise up to what the Jews have been doing.