"Shock and disbelief"

There were two stories lately which were placed by the media in the category of "shock and disbelief".  One story was about reporters from New York Times, who manufactured and/or plagiarized their stories.  The second story was about bribed Canadian Immigration Board Judges.  Two leading New York Times editors have resigned.  The media pretends to be astonished that these editors continued publishing articles they knew to be false.

For God's sake, the half-truths and lies are being published every day, and editors not only know these articles to be dishonest – they demand these lies and half-truths to be written.  The only difference in this particular case – the reporters were caught, and the media were unable to hush-hush the story, as they usually do.  Back in 1993, The Gazette has published "Fabrikant Files", where the only truth was that I killed four people, the rest was a lie.  They wrote that I killed four innocent people because I was a false scientist and I was about to be exposed as an impostor.  The truth was that these four were not innocent bystanders but rather members of a gang which threatened my life.  The reporters got Canadian equivalent of Pulitzer for their lies.

Just recently, media reported that I was harassing numerous innocent people by court actions, which were all groundless and vexatious.  The full truth is that jailers, with help of Quebec doctors, have brought me to the brink of death in 2001.  For some reason, murderous doctors blinked at the last moment and made Jailers to bring me to British Columbia for an angioplasty, and this is what I have demanded in all my legal actions. Can someone's legal actions designed to save life be considered vexatious?

The reporters lie to us every day.  Here is an example of today's lie: "Six people died in the West Bank after a helicopter attack." The lie here is not factual, it is in the way the facts are presented.  Majority of us are dumbheads, when we hear "people died", we process it differently from "people were killed".  There is a big difference in our perception of "after attack by a helicopter" and "soldiers in a helicopter attacked people on the ground".  Helicopter does not attack people, soldiers do.  Compare this with the truth: "Cowardly Israeli soldiers have killed from the safety of their helicopter six innocent unarmed Palestinians, among them one child and one baby".  Compare this with the initial report.

The same "shock and disbelief" is being expressed at the news of corrupt Judges.  For God's sake, majority of Judges of all kinds (and prosecutors) take bribes.  A good lawyer is not the one, who knows the law, but the one, from whom Judges and prosecutors would not be afraid to take bribes, it is as simple as that.  Various prisoners told me that their lawyers have offered them an option of paying $100,000 to have their sentence cut in half or more.  Yet another $100,000 would have brought them a total acquittal.

Ask yourself a very simple question: why would any lawyer agree to cut his pay thrice and become a Judge?  Why would any lawyer agree to work as a prosecutor for $60,000 salary, when he can get 5 times more in private practice?  The answer is very simple: they get bribes which well compensate the difference.  After several years of working as a prosecutor, he goes into a private practice and is considered a very valuable asset.  Why?  Because he knows personally all other prosecutors, and they trust him well enough to agree to take bribes from him.

To be surprised that reporters lie or that Judges take bribes is as ridiculous, as to be surprised that an old prostitute is no longer a virgin.

Idiots in Parliament

These days, the media all the time is talking about one thing: homosexual marriages, as if there was nothing else to talk about.  I was watching the Justice Committee hearing where this subject was discussed, and I was amazed just how dumb our representatives are.  They discussed whether the government should appeal recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The argument of those willing to appeal was as follows.  The Bible mentions Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam.  We know where to start, but we do not know where we might finish: today we accept gay marriage, tomorrow they would demand acceptance of polygamy.  We are sending wrong message to our children.

Those, who were against the appeal, argued the following way.  It is a discrimination not to accept anything for the sole reason of sexual preference; Judge such-and-such said ... ; marriage is a union of TWO people, to the exclusion of others, so there is no danger of polygamy.  We are sending a good message to our children, and it is a message of acceptance of diversity, respect for others.

I call both idiots, because all their discussion looks to me like a total waste of time and money.  Indeed, the Bible does mention Adam and Eve, but have we forgotten that religion is, and should be, separated from the state?  You want to follow Bible, you are free to do so, but you can not make laws forcing other people following Bible.  Besides, those, who claim to follow Bible, obviously never read it.  Bible is one of most homophobic vicious books available.  For example, homosexual act, according to Bible, is punished by death.  To the best of my knowledge, none of Christian countries follow this rule.

There is no danger that our children, seeing homosexual marriages, would decide to do the same.  I have been in Jail for 11 years by now, and it never crossed my mind to get interested in other men, and so are majority of prisoners.  Only a tiny minority resort to homosexual relationship, and when they get liberated, they return to heterosexual relationship.  We do not choose our sexual preferences.  If some of our children decide to get into homosexual relationship, it means, they are homosexual, and it is stupid and dangerous to force them into heterosexual relationships.

And now about polygamy.  Robinson seems to be the smartest among Parliamentary idiots, but even he did not dare to say that the fundamental human freedom should allow humans to get into unions of THEIR choosing, for example, if 3 women and 2 men decide to live together in a marriage, government has no business to tell them that they are criminals.

Polygamy is wrong, when it is imposed on women against their will, but if the participants entered it voluntarily, government should be kept out.  There is no doubt, that families, consisting of several men and women would be economically much stronger that one man – one woman families.  First, their housing expenses would be much smaller, they can afford to appoint one spouse to care for all children, so that all other adults can be working; different spouses having different talents, such a family would spend much less on various repairs, etc.

The media reported that government spent $300,000 just for the so-called expert opinions; if you add to this the lawyers' fees, the price would come to millions.  Our government does not have enough money for health care, education, homeless, but they always have enough MILLIONS for the bloody lawyers to argue nonsense cases.  As long as nobody forces me into a homosexual relationship, why should I care what other people are doing?


Two brothers Bulger in Boston: one - Irish Mafia boss and the other respectable politician and presently President of the University of Massachusetts.  The media wonders: how is it possible that two brothers be so different?  Are they really?  Every political party is a well organized crime, no more, no less.  They are after power for the sole purpose of lining their pockets with taxpayer's money.  The most “respectable" politician (JFK) got elected, because he made certain promises to organized crime and got their support.  He got killed by them, because he went back on his word.

CBS in "60 Minutes" had a show about organized crime being in charge of building a courthouse in New York.  The reporter expressed great surprise: how in this possible?  Very simple, there was no oversight here; two organized crimes have a business interaction.

It is not a coincidence that Mafia Bulger was working as informant for FBI; his FBI handler not only let him do all the crimes, but also himself got involved in racketeering.  The guy, who was working as Mafia enforcer, said in CNN interview that he observed both Bulger brothers during many years, they went along very well and loved each other.  Media pretends to be surprised and no reporter has the courage to tell public the truth: it is only natural for political organized crime to be on friendly terms with Mafia.

Our bravest

Seventeen of our bravest were charged in Detroit with robbing drug dealers and prostitutes, as, well as fabricating evidence.  The media pretends to be surprised.  They know damn well that this is what police does everywhere.  There were similar accusations in Toronto; during 11 years in Jail, I have heard on numerous occasions from other prisoners that Montreal bravest took money and drugs from the drug dealers, money put in their pockets; drugs were given by our bravest to other dealers for sale.

There are two types of criminals: the stupid ones, who rob ordinary citizens or break and enter their homes; the smart ones - our bravest, who can steal and rob and get away with their crimes, because they rob other criminals.