In this previous document I pointed out that there were so few black people in Ferguson, Missouri willing to join a protest during August, 2015 against the police that the Jews had to bring people in from other cities, and bring in white people, including a Jew who lied about being a "Holocaust survivor". In case you do not remember the Ferguson protest, the photo to the right shows some of the 50 people who were arrested. The protest was supposedly the result of black people who are upset that a policeman had killed Michael Brown, but most of the people at the protest who were causing trouble were white, not black. The black people were noticeably more peaceful.

It is now July 2016, almost exactly one year after the Ferguson protests. During this month we find that history is repeating itself. Specifically, black people have been staging protests to complain about the black men who have recently been killed by the police, and once again we find that the people who are causing the most trouble at these protests are white, not black.

The photo below, for example, show some of the people who were arrested at the protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, over the death of Alton Sterling. It looks just like last year's photos from Ferguson, Missouri, except that this year there seem to be more women involved in the protests.

The photo below is another from the protest in Baton Rouge. Where are the black people? This is supposed to be their protest. Why are the white people causing so much trouble for the police?

There are a few photos of black people getting arrested, but many of the photos show the same black person from different angles. This bizarre situation should cause all of the black people to ask themselves such questions as:

"Why are white people causing so much trouble at our protests? Are they really trying to help us? Or are they joining our protest in order to instigate violence and give us a bad image?"

The troublemakers at the protests are trying to influence our future, and we should not be intimidated into allowing them to do this in secrecy. We should demand that anybody who wants to influence the world do so in an open and honest manner. We should know who these people are, who they associate with, and whether they are being paid or blackmailed to join these protests.

As I mentioned in this previous document, when Donald Trump was giving speeches around the nation, the MoveOn group admitted to helping to organize protests. Is MoveOn also helping to organize the Black Lives Matter protests? We ought to know the answer to that question.

We are fools to allow secretive, mysterious groups to stage violent protests, block traffic, fight with the police, and influence our future. We are not providing people with freedom of speech when we allow secretive organizations to arrange for protests.

The photo below of a woman named Ieshia Evans gave rise to some interesting articles. For example, the news editors at AOL gave their article the title:
One powerful photo from Black Lives Matters protests becomes symbol of the movement

The Washington Post gave their article the title:
‘Graceful in the lion’s den’: Photo of young woman’s arrest in Baton Rouge becomes powerful symbol

The journalists are claiming that the photo shows us that black people are so fed up with the abuse by police officers that they are willing to confront the police, but I would say the photo really shows us that most of the black people at the protests were peaceful, and the police did not harm them.

All of the photographs of the protests show the same concept over and over. Specifically, the police do not harm any of the protesters who are peaceful and follow the laws. The only people who were attacked by the police were those who were fighting with the police.

Some journalists describe Ieshia Evans as "brave", and some say she is analogous to the man who stood in front of the tanks during the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in China. However, she is not analogous to the man who stood in front of the tanks. Evans had no intention of fighting with the police, so she had nothing to fear. By comparison, the man who stood in front of a row of tanks that was traveling towards him and the other protesters was fighting with a communist government. The communist governments behave like crime networks, not the American police departments. Specifically, crime networks and communist governments are much more likely than "normal" people to resolve a problem with violence, displays of weapons, and threats.

The Jews are so desperate to instigate fights, and the black people have been behaving in such a peaceful manner, that the Jews have been forced to use photos of peaceful black people, such as Ieshia Evans, as a way of convincing us that black people are angry, rebellious, and uncooperative.

The Jews are doing a terrible job of instigating a race war. That photo of Evans, for example, is not going to instigate violence among blacks, or cause white people to fear black people. If that photo has any effect on people's attitudes, I suspect it will be to encourage other black protesters to behave in a more peaceful manner. I also suspect that the photos of the protests are likely to cause many people to wonder why so many of the protesters who are fighting with the police are white. Why are the black people so much better behaved? Who are those white people? What is their true purpose for joining the Black Lives Matter protests?

Imagine if the KKK arranged for protests to complain about racist black people, and imagine that some black people joined the protests, and that the protesters who caused the most trouble were those blacks.

Or imagine if a group of feminists arranged for some protests to complain about sexist men, and that some men joined their protests, and that the protesters who caused the most trouble were those men.

Donald Trump was criticized many times by journalists for not condemning David Duke and the KKK. Those same journalists are supporting the Black Lives Matter. What exactly is the difference between the KKK and the BLM? Why is one group considered dangerous and disgusting, but the other is considered admirable and beneficial?

Many black people assume that the white people who are supporting the BLM are their friends, but I suspect that the journalists are promoting the BLM because they are hoping to encourage black people to join a violent, worthless organization that wastes its time making idiotic accusations of racism and murder. I think the Jews are hoping to find enough angry, violent black people to instigate riots, or a civil war.

There are lots of organizations of black Americans, but the journalists ignore all of them except for Black Lives Matter. Why do they give the BLM so much favorable publicity?

I think the reason is because the journalists do not want to inspire black people to discuss their issues in a peaceful and sensible manner. The journalists are willing to give favorable publicity to the BLM because the only thing the BLM wants to do is whine, have protests, and hate. Take a look at the description that the BLM provides about itself. One sentence that explains why it was created:

It was a response to the anti-Black racism that permeates our society and also, unfortunately, our movements.

Why would they complain that their own movements are permeated with racism? Why are they so angry at black organizations? It could be because the three women who started the BLM are feminists, at least two of whom are lesbians, or as they describe themselves, "queers". People with sexual disorders, regardless of their race, are often treated as outcasts. If a sexually disturbed person also has an angry personality, then instead of dealing with their problems in a peaceful manner, they may become bitter, angry, and violent.

Since the BLM was created by angry, feminist lesbians, it does not have a "history". Instead, it has a "herstory". Another sentence from their herstory page is:

Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.

The journalists are trying to create the impression that the BLM is a wonderful organization that represents black people, but it does not represent black Americans, or Africans. It represents only a tiny minority of the black population; namely, only a few psychotic, angry, miserable black women with sexual disorders, and only those who have convinced themselves that they are living in a world that hates them and wants to kill them. The BLM could be described as psychotic, hysterical, violent, and paranoid. I would say the KKK is a more sensible organization than the BLM.

I think the reason the journalists are promoting the BLM is because they are hoping to trick black people into joining the movement. This will increase the size of the protests, ruin the image of black people, instigate fights, and create fear of black people. To rephrase this, the Jews are simply trying once again to trick people into fighting with each other, just like they did to instigate the world wars, the Vietnam War, and the Mideast war that we are still involved with.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the BLM would have become popular if it had not been getting support from the Jews. I think the Jews are the only reason that it has grown so large. The Jews have been giving it favorable publicity for years. They have been hiding its disgusting qualities and promoting it as a wonderful organization.

When a news anchor made a remark that implied the BLM was similar to the KKK, she was attacked by a lot of journalists, and thousands of secretive, mysterious people on the Internet are now demanding that she be fired. The Jews are protecting the BLM. Anybody who dares to criticize the BLM is attacked as a "racist", and the Jews will try to have them fired from their job.

The fact that the Jews are censoring criticism of the BLM should be all the evidence that the black people need to realize that they should avoid the BLM. It should be obvious that the BLM is a trick to instigate fights and ruin the image of black people.

Years ago I mentioned here that the radio hosts Michael Savage and Paul Watson had a discussion about how a war could get started accidentally in the Ukraine. Their discussion is an example of how Jews pretend to be saddened at the thought of killings, wars, and other problems, but in reality, they are trying to instigate these problems.

Both Savage and Watson were using the "Power of Suggestion Trick" to give publicity to the concept that a war was going to start in the Ukraine. They were trying to convince the foolish people who listen to their radio shows that the war was inevitable, and that we should expect it and prepare for it.

The subtle difference between a person who "informs" us of an event and a person who is using the Power of Suggestion Trick is that the people who are using this trick will try to suppress analyses of the problem and possible solutions. They do not want us to discuss or research the issue. They are trying to convince us of something, not encourage us to learn about or discuss issues.

The reaction of Jews to the 9/11 attack is another example of this. They pretended to show sadness for the people who jumped out of the windows of the World Trade Center towers, but in reality, they were repeatedly trying to instigate hatred of Muslims, convince us that we had been attacked by Muslims, and trick us into responding with a war. They suppressed attempts to analyze the attack and discuss possible solutions to the problem.

On 7 July 2016, journalists began telling us that a black man was killing police officers in Dallas. As with the 9/11 attack, Jews expressed sadness over these killings, but they showed no interest in analyzing the problem. Instead, they tried to convince us that black people had begun a campaign of murdering white police officers. The New York Post was so excited that they immediately announced that a Civil War had begun.

The Jews were hoping that they had finally tricked us into starting a war, but they failed again.

Many journalists criticized the New York Post for describing the event as a Civil War. For example, the dailykos.com posted this brief article that criticized it as "wishful thinking", and the Huffington Post wrote this article that listed a few of the critical remarks from different journalists, such as "Most unprofessional and irresponsible headline of the year?" and, "the cover is beyond absurd; it is morally perverse and factually wrong.”

Why would journalists criticize the New York Post when they are also regularly lying to us and instigating fights? Why would they behave in such a hypocritical manner?

One reason for the hypocrisy could be because the New York Post was so extreme that some Jews decided to criticize them in order to make themselves appear more reputable.

Another reason that the Jews may have attacked the New York Post is because they were worried that the headline was such obvious propaganda that it might cause some of the goyim to become aware of what the Jews are doing. If we could observe a secret meeting between the Jews, we might find some of the Jews yelling at the editors of the New York Post, like this:

You idiots! It is so obvious that your headline is wishful thinking that you may cause some of the stupid goyim to realize that we are trying to instigate a race riot!

The journalists who criticized the New York Post complained that the Post was "irresponsible" or "factually wrong", but it would be more accurate to describe the New York Post as trying to incite hatred, wars, and violence. They should be described as "criminals", not as "unprofessional".

However, the other journalists will not describe the New York Post as criminals because virtually all journalists, including those who describe themselves as the "alternative media", are behaving in a very similar manner as those of the New York Post. They are all trying to manipulate us, instigate fights, and cover up the crimes by Jews. They are not journalists, and they are not simply "irresponsible". They are members of a gigantic, destructive crime network, and they should be arrested and removed from our world.

The journalists try to convince us that black people are being attacked by the police simply because the police hate black people, but the police are not involved in the campaign to hurt black people. By comparison, the Jews are on a campaign to hurt black people... and white people, Chinese people, and all other races, and the Jews have been attacking us for centuries. The black Americans should be more disgusted with the way the media is treating them than the way the police are treating them.

Take a critical look at the news articles that the journalists are publishing. The image to the right, for example, has a message at the bottom in which the editors demand that the police stop conducting "race killings".

We are fools to allow journalists to publish such idiotic accusations. That type of remark should be regarded as slander. Our police departments ought to arrest the editors and journalists, not purchase their newspapers or allow them to manipulate the gullible sheeple.

I would go so far as to say that our military is justified in regarding this crime network as a threat to the nation, actually, a threat to the entire world, and they should protect us from them. Our military should be defending the world from this disgusting crime network rather than fighting imaginary Muslim terrorists.

On the same day that the New York Post created that Civil War headline, the New York Daily News published this editorial about the shooting of Philando Castile. The first sentence was:

Again, a police officer has fatally shot a black American — one, two, three, four times — for the crime of being a black American.

Journalists justify publishing those type of articles by referring to them as "editorials", and by claiming that they are providing people with freedom of speech. However, we have to make a distinction between when a person is using his "freedom of speech", and when he is trying to manipulate us, incite anger, cover up a crime, or instigate violence. We should not allow journalists to intimidate us into believing that their attempts to incite hatred are "editorials". We must set higher standards for journalists, and for all other people who try to influence the world.

The Jews censor people like me on the grounds that we are spewing anti-Semitism and hatred, but it is the Jews who promote hatred and violence. They are regularly publishing what our courts should describe as hate speech, lies, deception, slander, and insults, and they are regularly censoring people who have intelligent comments. We should not merely reprimand journalists who behave in this manner. Those journalists are not honest people making honest mistakes. They are diabolical, murderous, hateful criminals who should be removed from society.

Rather than arrest the editors and journalists for inciting violence, slandering the police, covering up the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack, and deceiving people into believing that suicidal Muslim terrorists are attacking us, our government officials are either silent about these crimes, or they participate in the propaganda and manipulation. For example, Hillary Clinton said:

“I will call for white people, like myself, to put ourselves in the shoes of those African-American families who fear every time their children go somewhere, who have to have ‘The Talk,’ about, you know, how to really protect themselves [from police], when they’re the ones who should be expecting protection from encounters with police”

She also made the shocking accusation that our police departments have "systemic" racism and bias:

“we have 18,000 police departments… [some of which need more training to] go after systemic racism, which is a reality, and to go after systemic bias...”

Her remarks should be considered as slander, inciting violence, or "hate speech", and she should be disqualified from influential positions.

Clinton accuses the American police departments of having "systemic racism" and "systemic bias", and she claims that African-Americans are so fearful that their children are going to be killed by the racist police that black parents have to teach their children how to protect themselves from the racist police.

Where is the research to back up her accusation that the police departments have systemic racism? Where is her research that shows that black parents have really had "The Talk" with their children?

How can anybody consider her to be worthy of a leadership position? Her idiotic accusations are indistinguishable from those of the editors at CNN and the Daily News.

Imagine if the executives of IBM allowed a group of employees to produce a newsletter that was as deceptive, dishonest, and manipulative as the news reports of CNN or the New York Post. For example, imagine an IBM newsletter accusing the IBM security department of conducting race killings. And imagine that instead of firing the employees who created the newsletter, the executives of IBM behaved like Hillary Clinton; specifically, imagine IBM executives joining the editors of the newsletter by accusing their security department of systemic racism and systemic bias.

What would you think of those IBM executives? And what would you think if the employees of IBM purchased the newsletters rather than demanded that the journalists and executives be fired? This is the situation we are in right now.

The Republicans frequently boast that they support "tough" law enforcement, so when are they going to demand that the journalists and government officials be arrested for slander? The answer to that question is, never. Donald Trump has promised to change our libel laws to make it easier for people to sue journalists, but he is standing alone. Where are the Republicans to support that policy?

One of the reasons that conservatives will never truly be tough on crime is that it would require that they be tough on themselves, their friends, and family members. They want to be tough on other people's crimes, not their own. It takes a lot of self-control for a person to be willing to enforce the rules of society on himself and his family members. It seems that only a minority of the population has that level of self-control. What about you; are you willing to follow the same rules that you expect other people to follow?

Although Obama is considerably better behaved than many of our other government officials, he also promotes the Black Lives Matter group, and he recently made a remark that should be described as deceptive or inflammatory. Specifically, after the killing of the Dallas policemen, he said that the police would be safer if they admit their failures.

His remark is true, but it is deceptive when he implies that only the police need to admit their failures. What about the black people? Why don't any of the black people have to admit their failures?

It would have made more sense if Obama had said something to the effect that everybody is imperfect, and that we all need to look critically at ourselves and try to improve. It is deceptive to focus on the police and make it appear as if they are the only people making mistakes, and that they are the only people who are so arrogant that they are resisting the possibility that they are imperfect.

There are thousands of encounters with the police every day in this nation, and many of those encounters are with black people, but only a small number of those encounters turn into an argument or fight. We are not going to reduce the fighting by encouraging people to believe that the police are solely responsible for all of these problems, and that all of us are innocent victims.

A government should not promote the attitude that only the police are badly behaved. Unfortunately, in a democracy, the people can vote for whoever they please, and because humans are selfish and arrogant, the voters have a tendency to vote for the candidates who make them feel good with praise and promises. They want candidates who will blame all of the nation's problems on somebody else. Voters will not tolerate criticism, no matter how useful it is. They won't even tolerate the accusation that they are responsible for their crummy government.

The voters pretend to be helpless victims of special interests or other political groups. They were provided with the freedom to elect anybody they please, even people who are not on the ballot, but they lack the intellectual and emotional abilities necessary to adequately handle that freedom. Millions of them are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton. Those voters are not victims of special interests; rather, they are mentally unfit to be voters.

The voters are not attracted to a candidate who treats them in a manner that a military drill sergeant treats his team, or like the manager of a business treats his employees. They prefer the candidates who titillate them with praise and promises, in the same manner that grandparents entertain their grandchildren. The end result is that the voters provide themselves with a government of con artists who pander to us, and who encourage us to be arrogant jerks.

Our nation puts a lot of labor and resources into police departments, crime investigations, and courts, but crime and corruption is rampant. Why is our legal system so ineffective? I would say that the two primary problems are:

1) Our legal system is based on unrealistic philosophies, such as that criminals can be rehabilitated with punishments.
2) We have allowed a Jewish crime network to get control of our courts, government agencies, and media.

An obvious example of how much control the Jewish crime network has over our government is the demolition of Building 7 during the afternoon of the 9/11 attack. It is so obvious that the Jews demolished that building with explosives that our government ignored that building when they published their analysis of the 9/11 attack.

The American court system is a farce. Many of our judges, lawyers, sheriffs, and district attorneys are criminals who should be arrested and exiled, or executed. The legal systems in Europe are not much better. Perhaps the best example is how they will allow Jews to arrest people for "Holocaust denial" while ignoring corruption and pedophilia among people in leadership positions.

The American people are allowing a network of criminal Jews to use our legal system to help them get away with their crimes. Journalists are regularly inciting violence and slandering people, but our courts will never allow any of those journalists to be arrested for their crimes. Michelle Fields filed a police report against Corey Lewandowski over an event that security video proves she lied about, but she did not get into trouble for it.

The Supreme Court justices in America are normally silent about every issue other than the cases that they have to make decisions about, but in July 2016 Ruth Ginsburg could not hold back her criticism of Donald Trump. With all of the corruption and bad behavior in America, why did she choose to complain about Trump?

Why didn't she complain that Hillary Clinton had slandered the police departments? Why didn't she complain that the editors and journalists of the New York Post should be arrested for inciting hatred? Why didn't she suggest arresting Michelle Fields for filing a false police report? Why didn't she complain that the Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that the war in the Middle East is a fraud?

If Ginsberg had provided us with an intelligent analysis of Trump, then we could say that the nation benefited from her remarks, even if we don't agree with her opinions. However, she provided us with only a few vague insults about Trump.

The other Supreme Court justices have remained silent about Trump and other issues, but their silence doesn't justify allowing them to have a top leadership position. We have to judge them by their effect on society. They are leaders of our legal system, so are they reducing crime or corruption? Are they making our legal system easier to use or understand? What exactly have they accomplished?

I don't think any of our Supreme Court justices have accomplished anything that would justify leaving them in a position of importance. I think they all should be replaced.

We are never going to improve our world until we become more critical of people in influential positions. We must give job performance reviews to our leaders, and we must replace those who are not bringing improvements to the nation.

After Ginsberg insulted Trump, other Jews criticized her for making those remarks. Why would Jews attack her rather than defend her? I suspect that it was for the same reason that they attacked the New York Post for describing the killings of the Dallas police officers as a "Civil War". Specifically, some Jews may have done this to improve their image, but most of them may have been upset that she had exposed her opinions, and that makes it difficult for the Jews to use her as an impartial judge. For example, Jeff Greenwald posted this remark on Twitter,

"If there's a redo of Bush v. Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments?"

If you have trouble understanding Greenfield's concern, imagine what he would say to Ginsberg in a private meeting with her. It might be something like this:

You idiot! By exposing your fear of Trump, you make it difficult for us to use you as an impartial judge when we need you to rule against Trump! You should resign so that we can replace you with a Jew who knows how to keep her mouth shut, and who can pretend to be unbiased.

The Jews are constantly reminding us of "The Holocaust", and telling us to never forget it. They want us to spend our lives feeling sorry for Jews and hating Nazis. We are also encouraged to hate Muslims. However, whenever a Jew is caught committing crimes or behaving in a disgusting manner, we are supposed to forgive and forget. We are supposed to "apply the golden rule" and treat the Jew in the manner we would want to be treated.

A few days after Ginsberg insulted Trump, she apologized. The majority of people love apologies because humans and animals are titillated when other creatures behave submissively towards us. The submissive displays play an important role in the life of animals, but with modern humans, this type of behavior is allowing criminals, incompetent leaders, and badly behaved people to continue causing trouble for us.

Apologies have no value for modern humans. Apologies don't fix any problems, or improve any situation. Ginsburg is still as worthless of a leader as she was before she apologized.

Most parents teach their children to apologize when they misbehave, but that encourages more bad behavior. It is equivalent to teaching children that when they misbehave, they should ask God for forgiveness, or that they should stick a pin into a voodoo doll.

A more appropriate lesson to teach children is that all humans are imperfect and defective, and everybody makes mistakes, and we do so throughout our lives. The more activities a person gets involved with, the more mistakes he will make. Children should be told to expect to make mistakes continuously throughout their life, and to regard each mistake as a learning opportunity. Children should be told that the best children are those who learn from their mistakes and become better people. Children should also be encouraged to learn from the mistakes of other people. Children should be told, "Don't apologize! Learn from your mistakes and become a better person."

A person will stimulate our emotions to protect children when he apologizes, begs for pity, or behaves in a childlike manner. Our emotions want us to take care of him and pity him. The less self-control a person has, the more likely he will be to take care of or vote for the person who apologizes. Women are especially titillated by childlike behavior.

The only way this world is going to improve is if we restrict the voters, military, and police to people who can control their emotions well enough to avoid being manipulated by displays of childlike behavior.

The people who apologize to us, or who provide us gifts, praise, and compliments, are often trying to manipulate us. At the other extreme, the people who criticize us are not necessarily our enemy; they may be trying to help us by providing us with their analysis of us. Their analysis may be idiotic, but the point is, they may be trying to help us.

If we judge people according to how they make us feel, we could end up like Katie Piper. Don't let her suffering go to waste. Learn from her mistakes.

It is important to note that Ginsburg did not merely apologize for her remarks. She said:

"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised..."

So, who advised her to make those insults about Trump? Her remark is more evidence that she and other people in leadership positions are not "leaders". Rather, they are members of a crime network, and they are following orders.

We also ought to wonder why she was the only Supreme Court justice to give an interview about her opinions. Why did the others remain silent? We should consider the possibility that the Jews asked some of the others to do such an interview, but they refused.

Earlier in this document I mentioned that there seem to be more women at the BLM protests today than there were at the protests last year in Ferguson, Missouri. Since most photographers are men, and since men have a tendency to focus on women, it is possible that this is just an illusion, but I would expect the number of women to increase as the crime network is destroyed. In other words, the increase in women could be evidence that their network has reached such a level of deterioration that it is becoming visually obvious.

The feminists like to believe that men and women are identical, but we are different. As a group, men are more independent and more intelligent. The differences between men and women make it easier to push women into doing undesirable tasks.

As I wrote years ago here in my 9/11 timeline, it was 2003 when some of the more intelligent Jews began to realize that the Internet was exposing them, and that they were in serious trouble. That was the year that the American Free Press abruptly stopped selling my book. During the following years, Jews of increasingly lower intelligence began to realize that their situation was getting worse every year, not better. Eventually some of them came to the conclusion that they were fighting a lost cause.

The smarter Jews began hiding in the background or secretly switching sides, and they were replaced by younger Jews and women who didn't understand that they were entering a battle that was hopeless. Each year more of the intelligent Jews abandoned their network, and this has allowed the dumber and younger Jews to have a more influential role in the network. Eventually their network will become dominated by fanatics, teenagers, women, and stupid men.

A British entertainer kicks a photographer who is irritating her.

It should be noted that journalists are doing more than lying to us and trying to instigate fights. They are also rude and annoying. In case you never noticed, Michelle Fields is only one of many journalists and photographers who have irritated people with their rude behavior to such an extent that people push them aside, hit them, or kick them (This page has some photos of these attacks.)

In America, the journalists and photographers are allowed to behave in whatever rude manner they please. A person who attacks one of the rude journalists is likely to get in trouble, not the journalist. In a better society, photographers and journalists would have to follow the same rules of behavior as everybody else.

If any of us were to become so annoyed by a rude person that we hit, push, or kick them, we could get arrested for assaulting a person, but why should we?


When we promote the philosophy that everybody should tolerate abuse, we create an environment in which the abusive people feel safe to behave in whatever crude manner they please, and other people are frightened to stand up to them. For example, after Luke Gatti was told by the security personnel that he was not allowed into the cafeteria because he was intoxicated, he argued with the security officer. Since this was a cafeteria, the security officer did not have a gun, or even a uniform, so Gatti was not afraid to argue with him. The officer had a name tag on his shirt, and Gatti poked it a couple of times. The officer told Gatti not to touch him, and Gatti responded by pushing him (in the photo below).

Everybody was afraid to stand up to Gatti, so they allowed him to continue arguing and pushing. Eventually a man in the cafeteria came over and tried to convince Gatti to relax, but Gatti argued with him and pushed him. Then a woman who worked in the cafeteria tried to convince Gatti to behave, but she had no luck, either. Another man came over and tried to help, but he had no luck. Gatti then returned to arguing with the security officer. Then another man came over and tried to help. It was as idiotic as this scene from the movie, Airplane, in which one person after the next tries to calm down a panicky passenger.

Nobody could convince Gatti to stop arguing and leave the cafeteria. The arguing went on and on. Eventually he pushed the security officer even harder, and that caused the female employee to grab Gatti by his arms and push him to the floor. Gatti began fighting with her, and the security guard and a male employee of the cafeteria came over to hold Gatti on the floor until the police arrived.

About six months later Luke Gatti once again caused trouble and was arrested. I would not be surprised if he commits another crime in the future, and then another. We like to feel sorry for people who cannot behave properly, but we are not helping them by feeling sorry for them, by tolerating their pushing, poking, spitting, and arguing, or by punishing them. They are suffering from some type of mental and/or physical problems, and we do not yet have the technology to fix many of their problems. Badly behaved people who cannot be helped with drugs or diet need to be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or exiled to the City of Misfits. Allowing them to live with us is tormenting both them and us.

There have been some employees, including airline pilots, who have shown up for work while intoxicated, but business owners rarely show any fear of standing up to intoxicated employees. Businesses are more likely to fire them, have them arrested, or order them to go home. If the intoxicated employee refuses to follow orders, the security personnel will use physical force, or they will call the police to use force.

All societies currently have different sets of standards for behavior. Businesses set a relatively high standard of behavior for their employees, but we have a low standard of behavior for the public, and we have an even lower set of standards for photographers and journalists. I suggest that every society set a high standard for everybody, and that the people who cannot follow the standards be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or exiled. None of us should have to tolerate rude or obnoxious behavior.

Another example of this problem is the people who will not return shopping carts to designated areas, and who instead abandon shopping carts in a parking lot, or who take the shopping cart home. We do not arrest people for being irresponsible, or exile them, or restrict them to certain neighborhoods. Instead, every society has the attitude that we must expect citizens to be abusive, selfish, and inconsiderate, and we must all learn to tolerate their abuse.

In Germany, Finland, and other nations, the markets have reacted to this problem by designing shopping carts that require people to insert a coin into the cart in order to get access to one, and if the customer wants his coin back, he has to return the cart to its original location. This is not a sensible solution to the problem, however. The best solution is to control reproduction so that each generation is naturally more responsible and considerate than the previous generation.

Businesses do not allow employees to leave tools, forklifts, and trash wherever they please. Businesses fire employees who behave in an irresponsible, inconsiderate manner. Businesses do not follow the philosophy that they can cure the badly behaved employees by putting them in jail, beating them with sticks, or making them pay fines. Businesses do not make employees leave some type of collateral, such as a coin, when they pick up a tool. Businesses do not promote the attitude that they can make people behave in certain manners. Instead, businesses look for employees who have the qualities they want. We could apply the same concept to an entire society.

The ideal situation is for people to behave in a respectable manner because they want to, not because they want their coin returned to them. People should be honest because they want to be honest, not because they are frightened of being arrested. People should contribute to society because they want to, not because they need money to purchase food. People who behave properly only because of fear of being arrested, or who work only because they need money, are no better than circus animals.

Most of the people who have been killed by police officers, regardless of their race or sex, were fighting with the police, but there is no video showing us what led up to the killing of Philando Castile. If his girlfriend is honest about what happened, then the policeman is not justified in killing him. However, I doubt that the policeman killed him because of "racism". I think it is more likely that he panicked at the thought of a black man with a gun. And the reason he may have panicked is that for many years the journalists have been promoting the concept that black people want revenge on the police. Once that concept is inside a person's memory, it can have an effect on his decisions. When he encounters a black man with a gun, those memories may trigger his emotion of fear.

Likewise, the journalists have been struggling for years to convince black people that white police officers are looking for opportunities to kill them. This can cause some black people to become frightened when they are stopped by the police, which in turn can cause them to behave in an unnatural manner, thereby causing the police to become suspicious of them.

I would say that our journalists are partly responsible for the fighting between the police and black people because whenever a fight occurs, the journalists encourage the black people to fear and hate the police, and they encourage the police to be afraid of black people. The leaders of our nation should do something to improve relationships between police and black people, but the incompetent voters have given us government officials who either allow the journalists to instigate hatred, or, as with Hillary Clinton, assist the journalists.

The Huffington post published this article with the title,

Guess How Many Black People Have Been Killed By Police This Year
The short answer is: too many.

The Guardian published this article that claims that they have been counting the number of people killed by US law enforcement agency since 2015. It is important for a society to observe its police departments and ensure that they are behaving properly, but the journalists are not trying to provide quality control of our police departments. Rather, they are taking only one side of the issue in order to create hatred and fear of the police.

It would be more beneficial for a society to have the opposite bias. For example, the Huffington Post would do more good for us if they had published an article with the title:

Guess How Many Policemen Have Been Killed By Criminals This Year
The short answer is: too many.

The Guardian would also have produced a more useful article if they had been counting the number of police officers who have been murdered and injured by criminals.

It is impossible to eliminate bias, so we cannot expect a journalist to be perfect, but we could restrict journalism to people who show a bias for the well behaved, respectable people who contribute to society rather than to the criminals and mentally ill people. As I described in other documents, we can never achieve perfection, so we should bias society in favor of the better behaved people.

According to this website, 26 police officers have been killed by guns in the United States during the first six months of 2016. There are fewer police officers in America than there are black people, so that is a significant amount of dead officers. The statistics don't describe how many officers were killed by black people, but it is possible that an analysis of crimes would show us that a police officer is more likely to be killed by a black man than a black person is likely to be killed by the police.

In such a case, the police would be more justified to be fearful of black people than black people could justify being fearful of the police. This in turn would mean that instead of black parents having "The Talk" with their children about how to avoid being killed by police, parents should have "The Talk" with their children who want to become police officers to warn them about the danger of being killed by black people.

Incidentally, you might find it interesting to note that the website that keeps track of the death of police officers is also keeping track of the deaths from the mysterious illnesses that police and other people suffered from as a result of breathing the dust from the demolition of the World Trade Center towers. In case you are unaware of this issue, the explosives that the Jews used to destroy the World Trade Center towers created extremely small particles of concrete, steel, mercury, glass, human body parts, and other items, and the tiny particles caused thousands of people to suffer lung damage, cancer, skin rashes, and other problems. I posted some information about this years ago, such as this article.

As I have complained in other articles, the American Constitution promotes the concept that it is sensible for citizens to stage protests in public areas, but protests cannot solve any of our social problems. There are thousands of protests in America every year over abortion, wages, racial issues, international relationships, and thousands of other issues, so if protests were beneficial, then each of those problems would become less serious each year as a result of the protests. But what in America is improving as a result of the protests?

The reason we enjoy having protests is because we are animals. When an animal is annoyed by something, it either runs away and hides, or it becomes violent. Humans behave exactly the same way when we become upset. Protests appeal to us because they give us the legal opportunity to scream, throw objects, and hate. A protest is the human equivalent of barking and biting.

Although we have an emotional craving to run out into a public area to scream and throw objects, we should not promote an activity simply because it is emotionally satisfying to us. We need to exert some self-control and push ourselves into behaving in a sensible manner. The people who lack the self-control to behave properly should be regarded as crude and animal-like. They should be classified as second-class citizens. They should be suppressed, restricted to certain neighborhoods, or exiled.

The journalists and government officials encourage protests by giving favorable publicity to the people who protest for issues that they support. For example, the journalists and government officials condemn and insult the KKK and Nazi groups when they have a protest, but they give favorable publicity to the protests of the Black Lives Matter group. Google even gave first place to a drawing (a portion of which is to the right) that promoted the Black Lives Matter group.

Google would never give first place to a drawing that promoted the KKK, the Nazis, or "Goyim Lives Matter", and they would never promote a drawing that showed that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, or that showed that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, or that showed that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust and the world wars (such as the cartoons below).

Incidentally, the "Google Doodle" contest is another example of how businesses are manipulating our culture for their financial benefit. Google is offering a first prize to children of $30,000 in college scholarships, along with other gifts, and this is causing thousands of children to waste some of their time creating images for the contest. Although some people might respond that children have nothing better to do with their life, I would say that a society should take control of its culture and design it according to what will provide us with the most pleasant life. We should not allow businesses, Jews, religions, the NFL, or other organizations to manipulate our social activities, holiday celebrations, sports, leisure activities, or other social technology.

It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine it happening at a more extreme level. For example, imagine that Google was offering a $20 million cash prize rather than a $30,000 scholarship. In such a case, the Google Doodle contest would have an even more significant effect on human culture. Specifically, the inability of most people to control their cravings for money and fame would cause a lot more people to put a lot more time and effort into winning one of the Google Doodle contests.

Millions of parents around the world would spend a lot of time and money helping their children to draw images for the contest, and some people would start businesses that offer to train children in creating the type of drawings that the Google judges are most likely to select as a winner. Many children would rush home from school so their parents could drive them to the Google Doodle Artistic Training Centers, where they would spend the rest of the afternoon and most of the evening practicing to create Google Doodles.

Google is not the only business that is trying to alter our culture for their own selfish benefit. This is actually a common practice in a free enterprise system. For some examples, a business that produces bottles of soda might encourage us to collect bottle caps; a business that produces cereal might put toys into the cereal boxes; a business that produces bubblegum might put baseball cards into packs of bubblegum; and a business that produces toy animals might deliberately make small amounts of certain toys in order to make them rare, thereby fooling people into believing that those items are special and worth more money (such as with the "Beanie Baby" toys).

When businesses manipulate us in this manner, we describe it as a "clever marketing technique" rather than as "exploitation", or as a "disgusting distortion of our culture". However, if a government were to manipulate us in the same manner, we would describe it as "disgusting". For example, imagine a government including toys with lottery tickets in order to cause children to put pressure on their parents to purchase more lottery tickets. Would you like to live in a society in which your children are asking you to purchase lottery tickets so that they can collect the entire set of toys that the government is offering? Would you want to listen to them complain, "The other kids are getting these toys from their parents. Why can't I have them, also?"

Or imagine living in a nation in which the government holds contests for children that offer $30,000 to whichever child can eat the most hotdogs in five minutes. Would you want the government encouraging children to practice for that contest? Would you want to listen to your children asking you to buy hundreds of packages of hot dogs so that they can practice eating them in large quantities? Would you want your children asking you to pay for them to go to a Hotdog Eating Training Center so that they can be trained by professional food eaters?

I would say we are foolish for allowing businesses to manipulate us into craving certain foods, hairstyles, and other products, and for allowing businesses to sexually titillate us, and for allowing businesses to manipulate our holiday celebrations, sports, and leisure activities.

Mark Zuckerberg and other Jews promote the concept that our government should stop "hate speech", but Facebook refused to remove a cartoon (the image below), that could be described as encouraging hatred and violence. Would Facebook allow us to post that same image if it showed the killing of a Jew?

Facebook promoting the BLM on their giant, outdoor computer display

The Facebook management has been promoting the BLM in their offices for a long time, and they have allowed the Facebook pages to promote the BLM, also. This article claims that Facebook "played a major role in capturing evidence and disseminating fury in the recent glut of police-involved violence." Why would Facebook be interested in playing a "major role" in "disseminating fury"?

Zuckerberg and the other Jews are hypocrites who are trying to manipulate us. The Jews claim to oppose "hate speech", but they regularly promote hatred. The Jews gave publicity to the image above in an attempt to encourage the angry, mentally unstable black people to fight with the police. I suspect that the Jews are the main reason there is so much fighting between blacks and whites. The Jews are also constantly trying to instigate fights between men and women, different nations, liberals and conservatives, homosexuals and heterosexuals, and other groups.

The nitwits who cannot understand that they are being manipulated by the Jews are dangerous.

Ideally, every citizen would have the intelligence and education necessary to realize that when Jews promote "hate speech" legislation, the Jews are trying to give themselves the legal authority to label whoever they dislike as "hateful" so that they can arrest their critics.

Ideally, all citizens would also have the intelligence and education necessary to avoid being tricked by these Jews into joining destructive organizations, such as the Black Lives Matter, and getting into fights with the police or other citizens.

The citizens who are too dumb or uneducated to understand these concepts are dangerous because they can be manipulated by Jews, salesmen, con artists, political candidates, and crime networks. The mentally incompetent citizens should not be allowed to vote or influence the economy. They should be in the same category as children since they are just as helpless and easily manipulated.

A few weeks ago, in June 2016, police in California shot and killed a 19-year-old white teenager named Dylan Noble because he was refusing to follow their orders to put both of his hands where the officers could see them. The video shows that several times he made it appear as if he was reaching behind his back, such as to grab a gun. The police warned him over and over to put his hands in the air and remain where he was, but he continued to make it appear as if he was hiding a weapon, and when he began walking towards the officers in a defiant manner and said that he hates his life, they fired two bullets into him, which caused him to fall to the ground, but did not kill him. They then shot him two more times.

Although a few journalists tried to incite pity of Noble and anger towards the police, such as in this article, not many people cared about his death. It seems that most Americans agree that the police were justified in shooting him. Many people also assume that he was deliberately behaving in a rebellious and suspicious manner because he wanted the police to kill him. A lot of unhappy people get into a suicidal mood once in a while, but we have such strong inhibitions about suicide that most people never attempt it. We ought to consider that Dylan Noble deliberately irritated the police because he was in a suicidal mood at the time.

If Dylan Noble had been black, the Black Lives Matter group would have undoubtedly staged another of their tantrums, and the journalists would have repeatedly complained about the murderous, racist police who are on a campaign to kill innocent, unarmed black children.

Some journalists complained that the police may have been justified in firing one or two bullets at Dylan Noble, but they should not have fired the final two. However, the majority of people have an unrealistic view of guns. Most people believe that guns are like those they see in Hollywood movies, in which a person shoots a gun, and the other person immediately dies. In reality, a gun will kill a person only if the bullet hits in certain areas. Shooting a person with a bullet is essentially throwing a small pebble at him at high speed. There is no guarantee that a bullet will kill a person.

A police officer would be a fool to fire only one bullet at a dangerous person. It is in the best interest of the police to fire repeatedly until they can be certain that the person is dead. The greater the distance between the officer and the criminal, the more shots the officer should fire in order to ensure that he is killing the criminal. There are numerous videos of criminals who have been shot, sometimes more than once, and who appear to be dead, but after a while they get up and continue to shoot at the police. Did you watch any of the three videos I described here?

Dylan Noble's parents are filing a lawsuit against the police. One of their complaints is that the police did not make any attempt to use a dog or a Taser to incapacitate Dylan. This brings up the issue of how police should deal with people who refuse to follow their orders. This is a complex issue. Rather than go into details, I will summarize my opinion by saying that when we devise policies for society, we should think about what is best for society and the future generations rather than what is best for an individual citizen.

I would say that from society's point of view, it is detrimental to set laws that we allow people to violate, and it is detrimental to have a police or security force that the people are allowed to ignore and argue with. We should promote the attitude that a modern society is a team, and that everybody must follow the rules. When we allow people to ignore the rules, we end up in the type of situation that occurred with Luke Gatti, who argued with the security personnel rather than obey their orders.

Our attitude should be that everybody must follow the rules, and those who refuse are to be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted to the City of Misfits. People should be told that if they argue with the police, they risk being killed. From the point of view of the individual citizens, this is a cruel policy, but we should not care about individuals. From the point of view of society, this policy is analogous to cleaning the dirt out of the transmission. We are not cruel for removing troublesome people. None of us have any obligation to tolerate their yelling; their spraying of saliva in our face; their poking and shoving us; or their arguments. None of us have any obligation to pity them.

A team does not have any obligation to let any of its members argue with the laws. We will create a more peaceful, productive team if we tell people that if they disagree with something, they should develop their brilliant opinions and post a document on the Internet for everybody to read at their leisure. We should promote the attitude that if the only way a person can get people to listen to his brilliant ideas is by yelling, throwing objects, staging protests, and waving weapons, then he has nothing of value to say.

People who are unhappy, using certain types of medications, or using certain mind altering recreational drugs, can behave in such an irrational manner that the police misinterpret their actions as a sign that they are hiding weapons or area a threat to the public, but the police should not risk their lives or the safety of the public by giving special treatment to people who seem suicidal or impaired by drugs. Some people claim that the police should try to help suicidal people, but I don't think that should be part of their job.

When the police misinterpret the behavior of people who are suffering from some type of mental or physical impairment, some people whine that the police should recognize their impairments and give them special treatment, but if we tell the police to do that, they can end up in a situation that resembles this scene from a Pink Panther movie in which Inspector Clouseau believes a man who is begging for money is blind, when in reality he is the lookout for a group of bank robbers. If we tell the police to give special treatment to people who appear to be blind, deaf, homeless, stupid, or crippled, then we provide criminals with another method to outsmart the police.

Rather than tell the police to try to figure out who is mentally or physically impaired, it would be better to separate the people with problems. We cause trouble for ourselves when we allow mentally or physically impaired people to mix among us. The solution to that type of problem is:

1) Set standards of behavior for a city, just like businesses do for their employees. Businesses do not allow deaf employees into areas where they must be able to hear, or blind people into areas where they must be able to see, or crippled people into areas where they must be able to walk. Businesses also expect employees who are recovering from surgery, or who are impaired by their medications, to stay home and recuperate rather than go to work and cause trouble. Businesses do not allow mentally retarded people into areas where they might cause trouble, either. We should apply the same concept to society.

We could also apply this concept to the elderly. Rather than expect the elderly people to live among us and suffer with the transportation systems, staircases, and escalators that were designed for younger people, it would be more sensible to design a city with living areas specifically set aside for elderly people, similar to a retirement community. That will make life more pleasant for both them and the rest of us.

2) Keep a database that has information about everybody's life and medical history so that we can easily identify people and know their history. People should control their paranoia of being observed, and their fear that other people are going to learn the truth about them. By keeping a database of everybody, the police would know who is in their city, and who is deaf, recovering from surgery, or crippled. That will help reduce incorrect assumptions that police make about us.

3) Track everybody. It would be even better if people could get over their paranoia of being tracked. If cameras around the city were using face recognition to track people, then everybody could be tracked by the city's computers. None of us would have to ask our friends or children where they are, and the police would never have to ask us for identification, or wonder where any of us are. Everybody would be able to look on their phone to see where everybody else is, and who is in their vicinity.

It would be possible to set up this type of software with today's technology because in a city that controls immigration, the computers would have a database of everybody's image, and the image of every visitor to the city. The computers only have to match the images coming from the cameras to the list of people in the database. If the computers could not identify a person in one of the camera images, that could be a sign that somebody has illegally entered the city, and the police would be notified, or a drone could be sent out to investigate. This would make it virtually impossible for illegal immigrants to survive for more than a few hours in the city.

Have you ever seen the real-time display of airlines? Take a look, and imagine the same type of display for people in your city. Instead of showing icons for different types of airplanes, it would show icons of adults and children, and provide their names.

If you wanted to meet a friend somewhere, instead of calling him to see where he is, you could look on your phone and see for yourself. If you wanted to play a game of volleyball, you would be able to look on your phone to see which courts are free of people, or, you could see if any of your friends were playing and join them.

That technology, incidentally, would make it extremely difficult for people to commit crimes because it would allow the police to figure out what everybody has been doing during their life. It should be noted that this technology would also make it difficult for the police and government officials to commit crimes because the citizens would be able to track their locations, also, thereby giving the citizens the opportunity to verify that their leaders are behaving properly.

I'm sure a lot of people would describe such a city as a stifling police state, but in reality it would create the incredibly friendly and open social environment that our prehistoric ancestors lived with. It would be miserable and frightening only to the people who are ashamed of themselves.

You might find it interesting to consider that life in that type of city would be similar to living in the space station, or on a boat, or in Antarctica. The people who insist that we must have lots of privacy and secrecy are ignoring the obvious fact that many people are regularly living without privacy or secrecy, and without ever complaining about it.

Of course, to be accurate, the reason astronauts, scientists in Antarctica, and people on a boat are not whining about their lack of privacy is because they don't have as much concern for privacy as the ordinary people. If they were as ashamed of themselves as the ordinary people, they never would have gotten themselves into those situations.

We could apply the same concept to a city. If a city restricts immigration to people who are willing to live without secrecy, then obviously the people will allow computers to track everybody in the city. However, if that city accepted immigrants who did not like the lack of privacy, then those immigrants would be analogous to dirt in the transmission. They would be constantly whining about the lack of privacy and putting pressure on the government to change the rules.

This brings me to a point I've made many times in my documents. Specifically, an organization is whatever the members make it to be. If we create a city that is dominated by people who are ashamed of themselves, dishonest, paranoid, and irresponsible, then we must expect the people in that city to keep secrets, be deceptive about themselves, and behave in an irresponsible, dishonest manner. If a city is dominated by people who pee in swimming pools and believe that everybody should carry a concealed weapon, then everybody in the city will carry a gun and pee in the swimming pools. If a city consists of people who are so apathetic and self-centered that they don't care if they are lied to by journalists or government officials, then they create a city that can be taken over by a crime network. If we restrict a city to people who are well behaved, honest, and responsible, we will create a city that is pleasant, free of crime, and efficient.

Many organizations analyze the mental and physical qualities of their members and put them into different classifications. For example, a business might analyze the employee's ability to operate machinery and classify him as a Welder Level 3, or Machinist Level 2. Some organizations also classify people according to how honest and trustworthy they seem to be. We refer to these as "security clearances".

Societies do not classify citizens, but we could apply this concept to societies. In other documents I pointed out that we currently design society for the worst behaved people, and my recommendation is to design society for the better behaved people, and to put restrictions on the people who are badly behaved. This requires classifying people.

No society yet is interested in trying to classify citizens, so the people who are mentally ill are allowed to live among us. We are expected to tolerate their awful behavior, but why should we? Why not allow neighborhoods, and even entire cities, to be able to decide who they want as a member, and whether they want to put restrictions on some people, or evict them?

Businesses are allowed to evict people who don't fit into their organization, and they are allowed to put restrictions on their employees, and we could apply the same concept to neighborhoods and cities. A neighborhood should not have to tolerate people such as Luke Gatti, or people who are living in the streets.

In addition to annoying us with their anti-social behavior, temper tantrums, arguments, violence, and spitting, the mentally ill people can be used as patsies in false flag operations. Have you noticed how many of the bizarre terrorist attacks are blamed on a single individual who has a history of mental problems?

Another of those suspicious attacks just occurred in Nice, France on 15 July 2016. The man who is accused of driving a truck into a crowd of people was known to be mentally disturbed and violent. The journalists describe him as a Muslim, but his cousin claims he was a "nasty piece of work", not a Muslim.

Even more interesting are the reports that the police found a fake grenade, a fake rifle, and a fake pistol in the truck that he was driving. Why would a terrorist carry toy weapons on a suicidal mission to kill us? That is a sign that he was a patsy who was given fake weapons. The reports also claim that he fired a gun at some police officers, so that means he had a real gun in addition to toy guns, or, more likely, somebody else in or near his truck had a real gun.

For the journalists to describe that man as a "Muslim" is as slanderous as describing a mentally ill American criminal as a "Protestant", or to describe a mentally ill criminal in Utah as a "Mormon". However, no society has set any standards for journalists, so they are allowed to refer to a person as a "Muslim" even if that person has no connection to the Muslim religion.

Imagine if we were to treat journalists in the way they treat us. For example, when you discuss the attack in Nice, France, you could say, "Did you know that the Jew who drove a truck over people in France had fake weapons with him?" And when referring to the attack in Dallas, you could say, "Did you know that the journalist who shot and killed five policemen in Dallas was killed by a bomb that was delivered by a robot?"

Jews and journalists are giving themselves such a bad image that parents in the future might reprimand children with such remarks as, "Don't lie to me. Do you think you are a Jew?", and teachers might reprimand students with, "Your essay is as dishonest as those from the CNN journalists."

I suggest you consider the possibility that the Jews are constantly searching for mentally ill people that they can use in their false flag operations, and they decided to use that mentally ill man in France in another of their attempts to instigate fear and hatred of Muslims. I also suggest that you notice how suspicious most other terrorist attacks are, such as the killing of the five Dallas police officers on 7 July 2016. The black man who is accused of those killings also appears to be another mentally ill man who the Jews used as a patsy to instigate hatred and racial fights.

It is not possible to truly separate a group of people into the "normal" and the "mentally ill" because there is no dividing line between us. To make the situation more difficult, our mind and body change as we grow older, and that can result in mental problems developing in what was originally a healthy child. Furthermore, concussions, strokes, and other environmental events can cause significant damage to a person's mind.

Classifying people will require a lot of effort from us, and we will need to occasionally review the classifications to ensure that they are still appropriate, but the benefits are worth the effort. Businesses are regularly giving performance reviews to their employees, and since they can do it, a society can do it.

As I have mentioned several times in my documents, I'm not suggesting that we try something that has never been tried before. I am simply suggesting that we look through history and notice which policies have been successful for businesses and other organizations, and we apply those successful policies to an entire society.

We are currently treating a society as if it is something different from a business, sports team, orchestra, or military unit, but a "society" is just a team of people. A society can follow the same rules that other teams follow. In such a case, the people in the city would follow rules of behavior, just like employees do, and they would be classified according to their behavior, thereby allowing the city to restrict the irresponsible, antisocial, and weird people to their own neighborhoods, restaurants, and parks.

If we also allow computers to track people in the city, then the city's computers would be able to track those who have been classified as potentially dangerous or mentally ill. This would make it easy for us to restrict them to certain areas of the city because the city's computers would be able to determine when they were trying to leave their area. The tracking technology would also allow us to see who they are associating with, which would make it very difficult for people to use the mentally disturbed people in crimes. Although the areas of the city where the mentally ill were living might have some crime, the rest of the city would be so peaceful that women and children could wander anywhere they pleased at any time of day or night.

Many people have difficulty being a member of a military unit, business, or sports team because they don't like following rules. Those people would probably dislike the type of city I am suggesting, but why should we plan our future according to those people? The wonderful aspects of modern society require teamwork, and we should plan our future according to people who can form teams and contribute to society, not according to the people who want to behave like independent, primitive savages.

If we had access to a database that kept details about everybody's life, it would help all of us in trying to understand our medical problems. For example, ever since I was a child I have had trouble swimming to the bottom of a swimming pool because when I get near the bottom, my ears would start to hurt from the pressure. I do not have any trouble with the decrease in pressure of airplanes, perhaps because the airplanes climb at such a slow rate that my ears have time to adapt to the pressure changes.

In the 1990s, a doctor told me that right ear was clogged, and that I could use some nonprescription eardrops to clear it. I did not know my ear was clogged because it was not causing any trouble, but I used those eardrops anyway. Many years later another doctor told me that my right ear was clogged. Is there something wrong with my right year?

During the past year or so I have often been hearing my heartbeat in my right ear. I initially assumed that my right ear was clogging again, and so I used those eardrops many times over a few months, but they did not have any effect in stopping the sound.

It then occurred to me that maybe this noise was due to a blood vessel that was on the verge of bursting, or that I was going to have a stroke. Eventually I became so annoyed by the noise that I decided to look on the Internet to see if anybody else was complaining about such a noise, and I found that there are hundreds of people posting questions on Internet forums about why they hear their heartbeat in one of their ears. Many people were telling stories about how they went to more than one doctor, but the doctors could not find anything wrong with them. There were also some people who went through some type of medical treatment which turned out to be useless.

Scattered among those depressing stories, I found a message in which a man excitedly announced that he decided to "pop his ears" by closing his mouth, holding his nose shut, and increasing the air pressure in his nose. That fixed the problem for him. A few other people at that messageboard tried that technique and reported that it helped them, also. I decided to give it a try, and it helped me, also.

This technique does not prevent the problem from reoccurring, so it still happens to me all the time, but whenever it becomes annoying, I just do it again, and that relieves it for a while, or at least reduces the intensity.

Apparently, at least some of us who are hearing our heartbeat have a problem with the canal that equalizes the pressure in our ears. Perhaps the reason I have never been able to dive deep in a swimming pool is because that canal has trouble equalizing the pressure at a rapid rate.

If we had a database that had information about everybody, including information that people would describe as pointless, personal, and "none of your business", such as whether you can dive to the bottom of the swimming pool, what type of allergies you have, and what your breath smells like, we would start noticing patterns, such as the people who have trouble going deep underwater are also likely to have certain other problems, such as hearing their heartbeat, or having trouble in airplanes.

Almost every time I swallow I hear faint noises that remind me of bubbles. They are the same sounds that as I hear when I swallow or move my jaws in order to equalize the pressure in my ears when I am in an airplane that is climbing or descending, or when I am in a car that is climbing or descending a mountain. It is mainly the right side of my head that makes these noises. The noises are so faint that I don't notice them when I am eating food or in a noisy area, but I notice them when I am sitting alone in a quiet room.

Since I have been hearing these noises for as long as I can remember, I was under the impression that this was normal, but maybe this is not normal. When you are alone in a quiet room and you swallow, do you hear bubbling or popping noises?

If we were to develop the technology to analyze chemicals in the air, and shrink that technology so small that it can fit into a cell phone, then we could occasionally blow into the phone and let the database keep track of the chemicals in our breath. This might help us to understand that certain types of odors are symptoms of certain hormone disorders, digestive disorders, tooth decay, or liver problems.

The people who are ashamed of themselves, or who are paranoid that other people will discover the truth about them, and especially the people who lie about themselves, are inhibiting our understanding of the human race. We should not encourage paranoia or secrecy. We should tell people to accept what they are, learn about themselves, and deal with their defects rather than pretend that they are flawless.

If athletes could be honest about their drug use, then we would have a better understanding of how drugs are affecting their health. Right now when an athlete suffers from a health problem, he will lie about his use of drugs, and that can cause doctors to misinterpret his health problems. Likewise, the people who use heroin or other drugs are likely to lie about the drugs they use, and that can cause doctors to come up with incorrect analyses of their problems.

The legalization of marijuana is providing us with the opportunity to understand why at least some people want marijuana. Now that people can admit that they smoke marijuana, a few people have posted videos in which they describe why they want to smoke marijuana. Here is one of the more interesting explanations that I have seen. He starts listing his problems about four minutes into the video. It sounds like one of his problems is Tourette syndrome, but he says the word so quickly that I am not sure. For another example, here is a woman who claims that marijuana has helped her to socialize and form friendships. There are other people explaining that it helps to relieve certain types of physical pain.

When marijuana is illegal, and when we hate, harass, or ridicule people who want to use marijuana, we cause the people who use marijuana to keep their use a secret. This does not help anybody. They continue to use marijuana, but we don't get any benefit from it. By allowing people to use marijuana, we can discover who wants to use it, and more importantly, why they want to use it.

Allowing people to freely use and talk about their drug use can also help the marijuana users determine whether marijuana is really the best drug for their problems. Some of them might discover that there is some other drug that is better.

If we had a database that had details of everybody's life, we would be able to do an analysis of the people who drink coffee, and how often they drink it, and when they drink it, and this would help us learn about why they are attracted to coffee. I suspect that we would discover that most people who have cravings for coffee have some problem with the production of energy, and that the caffeine is helping them to overcome their disorder. If those people realized that they had a problem, they might analyze themselves, and they might look through the database to see who else has had the same symptoms, and what they did to improve their situation. They might discover that there is a better solution than coffee. Some might discover that they are low on thyroid hormones, for example.

In our society today, we ridicule people who smoke cigarettes, and our government wastes tax money on public service announcements to pressure them into quitting. Many people also insult cigarette smokers as losers who want to "look cool". If we stopped the ridicule and seriously analyzed the people whose smoke cigarettes, I suspect that we would find that most of them have an attraction to the effects of nicotine. I don't think they are smoking because they are addicted to nicotine; rather, I think they became addicted to nicotine because they like the effect of nicotine. I suspect that an analysis of their body would show us that they have a problem that nicotine can alleviate to a certain extent, similar to how coffee and tea seem to help people with energy problems.

In order to truly understand humans, we must treat humans in the same manner that we treat animals and plants. We have to stop trying to control people. We are not helping ourselves or other people when we try to force people to behave in a manner that they don't want to behave, or when we harass, ridicule, or beat them. Harassing the cigarette smokers is not going to stop cigarette smoking. We need to understand why they want cigarettes. If a person is smoking cigarettes because of an inheritable genetic disorder that causes him to desire nicotine, then no amount of education or punishments is going to help them. The only way to stop that type of cigarette smoking is to restrict reproduction to people who don't have any need for nicotine.

There may be millions of people in the world who occasionally hear their heartbeat in their ear, or who complain about pain when they go deep underwater, but ridiculing us, putting us in jail, or beating us with a stick is not going to fix our problem. It would also be idiotic for a government to waste money on public service announcements that tell us to stop hearing our heartbeat, or to stop whining about the pain and force ourselves to swim to the bottom of a swimming pool. The only way to truly solve this problem is to figure out if these problems are due to an inheritable genetic disorder, and if so, restrict reproduction to people who don't suffer from these disorders.

It's easy for people to understand that there is no sense in ridiculing a person who hears his heartbeat in his ear, but not many people seem to be able to understand that it is just as senseless to ridicule, punish, and torment people who have a craving for marijuana, heroin, nicotine, caffeine, or painkillers, or who are homosexual, uncoordinated, unable to control their temper, or unable to control their consumption of food. We are not going to fix anybody's physical or mental problems through ridicule, punishments, or public service announcements.

The best way to reduce our problems is to eliminate secrecy and start studying humans in the same serious manner that we study plants and animals. We need to figure out how many of our problems are genetic, and of them, how many are inheritable, and we need to start restricting reproduction. This is unpleasant, but there is no point in trying to fight it. We cannot beat nature. The societies that refuse to control reproduction will slowly degrade into retards.

Some people will likely respond that if we allowed drug use, society will suffer as a result of people who operate machinery while on drugs. However, we can put restrictions on drug use, just like we have restrictions on automobiles, sports, and dentistry. We allow people to play basketball, for example, but they are not allowed to play basketball in the hallways of a school, on public trains, or inside restaurants. They are allowed to play basketball only in designated areas. We could apply the same concepts to drug use. We could allow people to use drugs, but only when they follow the rules of how to use them, when to use them, and where to use them.

People are free to ride horses, but they must follow the rules if they want do so. They are not allowed to ride horses inside apartment buildings or museums, for example. We allow people to play music in their home, but they are not allowed to play it at such a level that the neighbors are annoyed.

We can also set rules for the medical use of marijuana. For example, the people who want to use marijuana for medical purposes will want to use it while they are at home, and possibly while they are at work, and we could put a lot of restrictions on them, such as they must use pills or liquids rather than smoking the marijuana. This will reduce the fire hazards, and avoid annoying people with smoke and ashes.

When somebody suggests that we legalize drugs, most people react with panic. They frighten themselves with scenarios of dentists, pilots, and other people who are using LSD, heroin, and other drugs. Keep in mind a concept that I have emphasized before; namely, don't react to problems with fear or anger. React by looking for solutions.

It is possible to legalize drugs without suffering from dentists on LSD. We simply put restrictions on drug use, just like we have restrictions on where people are allowed to ride horses. The people who don't want to follow the rules should be evicted. We do not have to tolerate their abuse or feel sorry for them.

Our mind assumes that the animations that it creates are realistic, but our animations can be amazingly unrealistic. It is very easy for our mind to construct a device that provides perpetual motion, for example. In order for an engineer to be successful at designing products, he must be critical of his designs, and he must be willing to conduct experiments to determine which of his brilliant ideas are realistic.

This concept actually applies to everybody, not just engineers. For example, when a person wants to plant a garden for himself, or make a meal for himself, it is very easy for him to create an animation in his mind in which he is putting seeds into the dirt, and after a few weeks they become beautiful flowers or tasty vegetables. We can also easily visualize ourselves processing some food in our kitchen and making a wonderful meal. However, just because we can visualize these events does not mean that we can do what we are visualizing.

This amusing page on the Internet shows the results of people who tried to take photos that resemble those they've seen from professional photographers (one of the examples is below). Our mind can easily visualize ourself picking up a camera and taking a photo of our children that is as detailed, interesting, and artistic as the best professional photos. In our mind, a professional photographer is simply picking up a camera and pushing the button. However, in reality, taking truly interesting photos is a tremendous amount of work and requires a lot of knowledge and practice. Most of of the photos produced by amateurs are terrible, and should be permanently deleted.

In order to reach your maximum potential, you must be willing to be critical of your brilliant thoughts. You must be willing to face the possibility that your mind is just a large monkey brain, and it is out of touch with reality. You need to slap yourself in the face once in a while, force yourself to climb down from your pedestal, and look critically at your brilliant thoughts.

Since each of us have genetically different brains, each of us has different abilities to look critically at ourselves, and we have different abilities to differentiate between reality and fantasy. Ken Ham (in the photo to the right), for example, has contemplated many issues, such as evolution and the Bible, and he has come to the conclusion that the story of Noah's Ark is accurate. Unlike some religious people, he believes that Noah put some dinosaurs on the ark.

Ken Ham recently completed the construction of what he believes is a full-scale model of the ark (the large structure in the photo below). The ark is not a hollow shell; it has cages inside to show how Noah kept the animals safe during their 40 day trip.

Noah's Ark is no longer just a fantasy in our minds. It is a real boat that we can walk into. We can see for ourselves that the boat is large enough to hold thousands of animals. Unfortunately, just because we can build a large boat with lots of cages, that doesn't prove that the Bible stories are correct.

When a group of people disagree on which theory is more realistic, how do we determine who is correct? With many issues, we can determine the accuracy of a theory simply by conducting experiments, but we don't yet know of any experiments that can tell us whether the dinosaurs went extinct after a meteor crashed into the earth, or whether it was because Noah put only a few species of dinosaurs into the ark, or whether their extinction occurred extremely gradually over a span of millions of years as a result of nearly imperceptible changes in the Earth's climate due to continental drift.

In regards to social problems, there is no way to determine who has the best solution to our problems, but we do have the option of experimenting with possible solutions. For example, many people believe that we can stop crime by providing everybody with guns, and other people believe that we can stop crime by developing better rehabilitation programs for criminals, and I think the only practical policy is to exile criminals to a City of Misfits.

There is no way we can determine whose opinion about crime will provide us with the most pleasant society and the lowest levels of crime, but if we were to create different, independent cities, then each city would be free to experiment with crime prevention techniques, school systems, voting systems, marital policies, holiday celebrations, and clothing styles. This would allow us to observe one another and pass judgment on which city was doing the best job of dealing with crime, and which city had developed the most efficient school system, and which city had the highest success rate with marriages.

By allowing the cities to experiment with social technology, we would be able to learn about ourselves. Furthermore, the experiments would help us pass judgment on who among us is devising the policies that turn out to be unrealistic, and who is doing a better job of offering practical suggestions. The people who repeatedly devised policies that turned out to be useless would eventually be told to keep their mouth shut and let other people deal with social issues.

We want guns because we are easily frightened

I mentioned that there were two primary reasons that we want guns. I discussed the other reason in other documents. To summarize it, we want guns because we are easily frightened, and a gun can satisfy our emotional craving for protection and security. We don't want to use the gun; we simply want it as a security device, like a frightened child clinging to a toy animal.

Even though there are thousands of crimes committed every year in America, the population of this nation is so large that most people will never be involved in a situation where a gun would be of use to them.

There are a few neighborhoods where there is so much violence that the people who live or travel in those areas could justify having a gun for protection, but the majority of people in every nation will never benefit from a gun. Many people will be victims of burglaries, rapes, and other crimes, but a serious analysis of those crimes will show that guns would not have helped those people.

For some examples, a gun will not stop a burglar who is breaking into your house when you are either not home, or you are sleeping. Many of the women who have been raped were grabbed when they were not expecting it, so a gun would not have helped them. Some women were sleeping in their beds when they were attacked by a rapist. A gun would not have helped those women.

It is also important to note that the few people who have had an opportunity to use their gun during crimes have sometimes discovered that their gun did not help them because they either missed the criminal, or they only wounded the criminal, or the gun malfunctioned. In our fantasies, we can kill a criminal with one shot, but in reality, we might simply make the criminal angry at us.

A type of murder that has occurred many times in America is when a person kills his spouse for insurance money, or over a dispute of how to divide their wealth or children during a divorce. A gun does nothing to protect the other spouse from that type of crime. Actually, allowing the ordinary people to have guns is probably the reason there are so many of those types of murders. That could be an example of a crime that would decrease significantly if the public was not permitted to have guns.

A serious analysis of crime would show us that guns are rarely of use in stopping crimes. Thousands of police are patrolling American cities 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and even though they have guns, they stop only a small fraction of the crimes. With so much evidence that guns cannot stop crimes, why is there such a strong craving for guns?

A prepper is testing his gas mask

It is because people are following their emotions, not their intellect. People believe that guns will protect them because they are frightening themselves with the thought of criminals attacking them, and they are fooling themselves into believing that if they had a gun, they would be able to quickly grab their gun and shoot the criminal.

These people are behaving in a similar manner as the people who are referred to as "preppers"; ie, the people who are building underground bunkers to protect their families in case an asteroid hits the earth, or in case America gets involved with a nuclear war, or in case there is a deadly pandemic, such as Cloise Orand, who I mentioned here. These people are frightening themselves into believing that an event of extremely low probability is actually a very high probability.

Why do people frighten themselves? It is because we are animals, and this is a self-preservation technique. The animals that were the best at surviving were those that were fearful of loud noises; being observed by other animals; and dark areas that could be hiding dangerous creatures or crevices.

Animals and humans are very easily frightened, and once we are frightened, we want to run to other people and be with them, or we want weapons to protect ourselves. Unfortunately, even though the weapons can provide us with emotional satisfaction, they rarely protect us. A child will feel better by clinging to a stuffed animal, but the toy does nothing to protect him. Likewise, when we purchase a gun, we feel safe from crime, but it is unlikely that the gun will have any value to us.

It is extremely unlikely that a criminal is going to give us an opportunity to grab and use a gun. An ordinary citizen in an ordinary neighborhood is more likely to be hit by lightning than he is to encounter a situation where a gun will be of benefit to him. It is even more interesting to note that most of the police officers never encounter an opportunity to use a gun.

Even though most police officers never use their gun, they can justify carrying guns. However, there are not many citizens who can truly claim that they are living or traveling in an area that is so dangerous that a gun may be of benefit to them.

It is significant that the people who promote guns as a solution to crime resist attempts by the government to require people be licensed to use guns. They complain that they should not have to go through background checks; they should not have to go through any type of training courses; and they should not need any type of license. They want to purchase guns of any type they please, and in any quantity, and without any restrictions.

By comparison, we do not allow people to drive automobiles unless they have first shown evidence that they that have the skills necessary to drive an automobile properly. If they want to drive a truck, they need to show that they can properly drive trucks. If they want to fly an airplane, they must show evidence that they know how to properly fly an airplane. If a person wants to practice dentistry or medicine, he must show evidence that he knows what he's doing in those areas. We don't even allow people to get married without registering themselves as a married couple, and putting those marriage certificates out into the public for everybody to see.

Why do the people who promote guns as a solution to crime complain about restrictions on guns? Why wouldn't they want everybody who wants a gun to go through a training course so that they know how to properly use a gun? There are dozens of videos on the Internet that show people using guns in inappropriate manners. Many people are injured when the gun kicks back and hits them in the face, and one of the more frightening videos shows a young girl with an automatic rifle who is knocked backwards by the gun, and she continues shooting while she is twisting around and falling down. Although nobody was hit by the bullets, there were people standing nearby and they could have been killed if she had been left-handed, thereby turning the opposite direction.

Take a look at some of the videos that appear when you do a search for idiots with guns. Imagine people behaving in such an irresponsible manner with airplanes, chainsaws, acetylene torches, and kitchen knives. As I discussed in this previous document, I don't think the Second Amendment was intended to give the public the right to use guns as toys. It gives a "well regulated militia" the right to use guns, not "citizens".

Why wouldn't all gunowners support the concept that anybody who wants a gun must first go through training courses and show evidence that they know how to properly use a gun? And why wouldn't they want everybody with a gun to be licensed and identified? I think the reason is because some of the people who want guns are simply following their emotional cravings for weapons. They want guns because they are frightened, and they have no interest in learning about guns or taking training courses on using guns.

There are also some people who regard guns as toys, and they also have no interest in learning about them or taking training courses. They want to play with guns, but why should any society offer guns to people who want to treat them as toys?

Many people consider themselves to be courageous and adventurous, but each of us has a different idea on what is "adventurous". Some people describe themselves as "adventurous" when they do something as insignificant as tasting a new flavor of ice cream. I would describe the majority of people as so afraid of making changes to their life that they will continue to do something even after they realize that it is ridiculous. Many times in history a nation has made changes that they described as "sweeping" or "radical", but which I would describe as cautious and trivial.

Our fear of the unknown and our craving to follow established procedures is so strong that we have a tendency to make trivial changes to society rather than experiment with significant changes. In order for us to truly make important improvements to this world, we need to push aside the timid people who want to follow their ancestors and find a large group of people who are so adventurous that they are willing to experiment with significant changes.

For a few examples:

• For thousands of years people have been complaining that the public is too incompetent to select leaders, but we are still resisting experiments to develop a better method of providing a nation with leadership. Every society occasionally makes changes to their voting system, but we make only insignificant changes. Most people are terrified at the thought of trying a completely new government or voting system.

• A lot of people complain about rude behavior, but no society yet has been willing to experiment with solutions. For example, some T-shirts in Asia have idiotic and rude remarks. I admit that a lot of the photos on this page are amusing, but I think the only reason they are amusing is because we assume that the Asians do not understand what those English phrases mean.

If an American parent were to provide those same shirts to their children, I would not describe the shirts as amusing. I would regard them as idiotic, irritating, or crude.

Who is creating those shirts, and why? There are also signs in Asia that have been mistranslated, but how many of them were mistranslated on purpose?

People enjoy playing jokes on one another, but no society yet has wanted to experiment with raising standards of behavior and differentiating between "harmless jokes" and "abuse".

Businesses are willing to pass judgment on when their employees are irritating or abusive, but societies promote the attitude that we should tolerate crude, irresponsible, and irritating behavior from the public. Every society has such low standards of behavior for citizens that we can get away with a lot of abuse that no business would tolerate. The only way we are going to improve our social environment is if we can find enough people who are willing to experiment with significant changes to our attitudes.

It is not just clothing designers that show rude behavior; it seems as if some architects are doing it, also. Asia has some bizarre buildings, and there have been proposals for some buildings are so bizarre that they were turned down, such as the proposal to create an apartment building that looks like the two towers of the World Trade Center after the airplanes crashed into them.

• A lot of people complain about wars, but most people are too frightened to experiment with changes that might truly make it difficult for people to start a war. As a result, every nation continues to complain about war, but they all continue to waste enormous amounts of resources and technical talent on weapons and war.

• All throughout history people have also been complaining about crime and crime networks, and although every society occasionally experiments with changes to their laws, legal system, and attitudes towards crime, I would describe all of the changes as insignificant and meaningless. The only way we are going to develop a better solution to crime is to find a group of people who are so adventurous that they can experiment with some truly different legal systems and attitudes towards crime.

When we are young, life seems to last forever, but our lives are actually very short. How are you going to spend your remaining years of life? Are you going to live in fear of experimenting with changes? Are you going to spend your time feeling sorry for "Underdogs"? Are you going to cry about the black people who are killed by the police? Or are you willing to find the courage to experiment with a new city and new culture?

Artists tend to be technically incompetent, so their imaginary cities are extremely unrealistic, but the drawing below might give you a few more ideas on what is possible if we were to find enough people with the courage to try something different. We could create cities in which people are living and working in tall buildings that are surrounded by lakes, parks, and gardens. There could be pathways that let us walk out onto the water, and into tunnels that take us in the ponds so that we can see the fish, plants, and turtles.