By SOLOMON MOORE
Published: September 30, 2007

THE police officer had not asked my name or my business before grabbing my wrists, jerking my hands high behind my back and slamming my head into the hood of his cruiser.

“You have no right to put your hands on me!” I shouted lamely.

“This is a high-crime area,” said the officer as he expertly handcuffed me. “You were loitering. We have ordinances against loitering.”

Last month, while talking to a group of young black men standing on a sidewalk in Salisbury, N.C., about harsh anti-gang law enforcement tactics some states are using, I had discovered the main challenge to such measures: the police have great difficulty determining who is, and who is not, a gangster.

My reporting, however, was going well. I had gone to Salisbury to find someone who had firsthand experience with North Carolina’s tough anti-gang stance, and I had found that someone: me.

Except that I didn’t quite fit the type of person I was seeking. I am African-American, like the subjects of my reporting, but I’m not really cut out for the thug life. At 37 years old, I’m beyond the street-tough years. I suppose I could be taken for an “O.G.,” or “original gangster,” except that I don’t roll like that — I drive a Volvo station wagon and have two young homeys enrolled in youth soccer leagues.

As Patrick L. McCrory, the mayor of Charlotte and an advocate of tougher anti-gang measures in the state, told me a couple of days before my Salisbury encounter: “This gang-like culture is tough to separate out. Whether that’s fair or not, that’s the truth.”

Tough indeed. Street gangs rarely keep banker’s hours, rent office space or have exclusive dress codes. A gang member might hang out on a particular corner, wearing a T-shirt and jeans, but one is just as likely to be standing on that corner because he lives nearby and his shirt might be blue, not because he’s a member of the Crips, but because he’s a Dodgers fan.

The problem is that when the police focus on gangs rather than the crimes they commit, they are apt to sweep up innocent bystanders, who may dress like a gang member, talk like a gang member and even live in a gang neighborhood, but are not gang members.

In Charlotte’s Hidden Valley neighborhood, a predominately African-American community that is home to some of the state’s most notorious gangs, Jamal Reid, 20, conceded that he associates with gangsters. Mr. Reid, who has tattoos and wears dreadlocks and the obligatory sports shirts and baggy jeans, said gangsters are, after all, his neighbors, and it’s better to be their friend than their enemy.

Sheriff’s records for Charlotte-Mecklenburg County show that Mr. Reid has been arrested several times since 2004 for misdemeanors including driving without a license, trespassing and marijuana possession. Despite his run-ins with the law, Mr. Reid said he had never been in a gang and complained that the police had sometimes harassed him without a good reason.

“A police officer stopped in front of my house and told me to come to his car,” he told me. “I said, no. They got out and ran me down. They did the usual face-in-the-dirt thing.”

Maj. Eddie Levins of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police said that officers are allocated to different areas based on the number of service calls they receive, so high-crime areas are likely to get more police attention.

“Where there are more police, expect more police action,” Major Levins said. “Some people think ‘I can just hang out with this gang member as long as I don’t do any crime.’ Well, expect to be talked to. We can’t ignore them. In fact, we kind of want to figure out the relationship between all these gang members and their associates.”

Major Levins said that his fellow officers aren’t perfect and that he was aware of occasional complaints of harassment, but he said that most residents would like to see more police officers on the streets, not fewer.

Even Cairo Guest, a 26-year-old who complained he was handcuffed in his backyard, acknowledged that gang members in his neighborhood were “out of control.”

“There are a lot of guys out here doing stuff they shouldn’t have been doing,” Mr. Guest said.

Still, some civil rights advocates complain that the definition of a gang member is vague. Gang researchers find that most active members usually cycle out of their gangs within about a year. Even active participants might only be marginal members, drifting in and out of gangs, said Kevin Pranis, a co-author of “Gang Wars,” a recent report on antigang tactics written by the Justice Police Institute, a nonprofit research group.

Harsh penalties could actually reinforce gang membership by locking peripheral gangsters in jail with more hardened criminals, he said.

Suburban Salisbury, population 30,000, is about as far from the traditional ganglands of Los Angeles, Chicago or even Durham as you can get. But it has had an outsize voice in pushing for tougher anti-gang measures since a 13-year-old black girl was inadvertently killed there in a gang shootout after a dance party in March.

I arrived in Salisbury at midnight, figuring that gang members would be more visible after dark, and found a local hangout with the help of a cabdriver.

Striking up a conversation with young gang members in the middle of the night in an unfamiliar town is always a tricky proposition, but the one advantage I figured I had was that I am African-American. Brown skin can be a kind of camouflage in my profession, especially if you do a lot of reporting in minority neighborhoods, as I do. Blending in visually sometimes helps me observe without being observed.

But even when my appearance has been helpful, the benefits rarely survive the first words out of my mouth, which usually signal — by accent or content — that I’m not from around wherever I am.

“What’s The New York Times doing down here?” asked an incredulous black man. He and about a dozen other men were standing in front of a clapboard house in Salisbury. I observed several drug sales there within minutes of arriving.

“Man, you a cop,” said another. “Hey, this guy’s a cop!”

“You’ve got me wrong,” I said trying to sound casual as the men looked at me warily. I started to pull my press identification out of my wallet. “I’m a reporter. I’m just trying to talk to you about your neighborhood.”

In the distance I heard neighborhood lookouts calling: “Five-O! Five-O!” — a universal code in American ghettos for the approaching police. I thought they were talking about me, but thought again as three police cars skidded to a stop in front of us.

A tall white police officer got out of his car and ordered me toward him. Two other police officers, a white woman and a black man, stood outside of their cars nearby. I complied. Without so much as a question, the officer shoved my face down on the sheet metal and cuffed me so tightly that my fingertips tingled.

“They’re on too tight!” I protested.

“They’re not meant for comfort,” he replied.

While it is true that I, like many of today’s gang members, shave my head bald, in my case it’s less about urban style and more about letting nature take its course. Apart from my complexion, the only thing I had in common with the young men watching me smooch the hood of the black-and-white was that they too had been in that position — some of them, they would tell me later, with just as little provocation.

But here again I failed to live up to the “street cred” these forceful police officers had granted me. As the female officer delved into my back pocket for my wallet she found no cash from illicit corner sales, in fact no cash at all, though she did find evidence of my New York crew — my corporate identification card.

After a quick check for outstanding warrants, the handcuffs were unlocked and my wallet returned without apology or explanation beyond their implication that my approaching young black men on a public sidewalk was somehow flouting the law.

“This is a dangerous area,” the officer told me. “You can’t just stand out here. We have ordinances.”

“This is America,” I said angrily, in that moment supremely unconcerned about whether this was standard police procedure or a useful law enforcement tool or whatever anybody else wanted to call it. “I have a right to talk to anyone I like, wherever I like.”

The female officer trumped my naïve soliloquy, though: “Sir, this is the South. We have different laws down here.”

I tried to appeal to the African-American officer out of some sense of solidarity.

“This is bad area,” he told me. “We have to protect ourselves out here.”

As the police drove away, I turned again to my would-be interview subjects. Surely now they believed I was a reporter.

I found their skepticism had only deepened.

“Man, you know what would have happened to one of us if we talked to them that way?” said one disbelieving man as he walked away from me and my blank notebook. “We’d be in jail right now.”

by Kiri Davis

“I knew from an early age that film was a medium I wanted to work in. Through my films I’ve found a way of expressing myself as well as telling the stories that are important to me. At sixteen, I directed my first documentary, A Girl Like Me. Before that, I created numerous short films and attended the New York Film Academy. I would love to pursue a career in film making as well as to explore my passions for acting and writing. I have a love of traveling, which affords me the opportunity to meet new people and explore other cultures. My goal is to develop more projects that will help my community and give a much needed voice to issues that pertain to people of color. I am currently attending Urban Academy, a NYC public high school, and I live with my mother in Manhattan’s Upper West Side.”

Reel Works Teen Filmmaking

Reel Works Teen Filmmaking, supported by HBO, is a free after-school program that challenges high school students to create short documentary films about their lives. Working one-on-one with professional filmmaker-mentors, students write, shoot and edit personal narrative videos on subjects they choose. In the process, they gain self-esteem, develop media literacy and master state-of-the-art digital filmmaking technology. We say to teens: You have a voice! Use it!

And the world is listening! Since we began in 2001, our students’ films have been broadcast on HBO Family, PBS and LINK-TV and have been presented at film festivals nationwide from the American Film Institute in Hollywood to the Museum of Television & Radio in Manhattan. Our teen filmmaking program has been featured in the New York Times, The Daily News and on MSNBC, PBS and NY1 News. We have won numerous awards including four Honorable Mention National Student Emmys. Today, our films are being used in classrooms to teach powerful life lessons of diversity, tolerance and hope.

Young student’s documentary leaving audiences stunned.

To see some of the comments generates by this video, visit the YouTube post here.

If you happen to get a page full of garbled code, then type “ricomachiavelli” in the search bar on the YouTube site and click on the video link.

Truth is often viewed in the past tense, as a thing that has already happened and must be divulged rather than being a measure by which one lives. Truth is also a projection, if not a weapon, seldom a light shined upon ourselves for self-discovery but rather turned upon adversarial ideologies to expose their deficiencies; deficiencies we recognize all too well as they are oftentimes our own.

Why are we so ashamed of our inadequacies? Why do we hold ourselves to be perfect in the eyes of others knowing that none of us is perfect? Why do we embrace images and illusions instead of essence and reality? We are taught that we should not judge a book by its cover, that we should judge others by the content of their character, and treat others as we wish to be treated – and we know this is right. Why don’t we do it?

Are we, as the Word of God says, sheep looking for a shepherd, easily led to the slaughter because we cannot think for ourselves but would rather that someone else make decisions for us, excusing us of our self-responsibility?

Habits are horrible things – excuses not to think, I have come to discover; not that thinking ensures a betterment of our situation or understanding. Faulty logic, it seems, is much more plentiful than straight logic and as different as reasoning from rationalizing.

And what is love as it is commonly understood but a misunderstood application of antiperspirant, used to band-aid loneliness, doubt and mortality?

Semantics and definitions have been abused to such an extent that otherwise sensible individuals have unwittingly dummied down, implicating their own ignorance as the main culprit in breakdowns of communication and transparency.

It also seems that somewhere in the not so distant past society has managed to utterly destroy common sense and replace it with assumption and convenience – no matter the consequence.

We have gone from endeavoring to know about a thing to becoming content with the proposition that we shall never know anything. Having become comfortable with our ignorance, we automatically buy into our failure … for without the attempt what can be accomplished?

An actor once delivered the lines, “if we don’t try, how can we do? And if we don’t do, then what are we here for?”

I have often argued that words exist for a purpose – to define those concepts they have been assigned to. There can be no language without definitions and without language there can be no communication.

So when someone accuses me of being wrong for calling another person ugly, I want to ask them if I am ugly for making the statement, and that if the word can be attributed to me, why not someone else, and who decides what is beautiful or ugly to me besides me?

Therein, I believe, lies the real issue. To find someone with whom we naturally agree is not the same as finding someone who has been persuaded, convinced or forced to agree. Our sense of sovereignty over our own lexicon of values, definitions and beliefs is sacrosanct. Depending on our malleability, when we are confronted with views that challenge our own we become defensive if not combative outright.

Our identity is so inextricably wrapped up in our views that even if we are wrong we are slow to concede the fact, jealously guarding our position as if our life depended on it – and to some extent that is exactly the case. When our ideas change, so does our paradigm; when our paradigm changes we look at life through new lenses. Everything may not appear completely different, but the way we see things will not be the same.

To look at life through new eyes can be a scary proposition to some. Sometimes it means letting go of a mindset that has had years to root itself in your psyche. Breaking from that can leave one feeling so vulnerable that they would rather cling to the illusion of safety (sticking their heads in the sand) than set out on a journey to reality.

Sometimes it isn’t fear that dissuades the decision to move forward, but age. At some point a person can feel that they been there and done that and that they are tired. The idea of embarking on what promises to be a demanding and challenging mission this lat in the game is not motivating in the least. They would rather leave it to the youth of the generations behind them to figure out. They rationalize that if it were meant to be, it would have been done already.

The Department of (misguided) Education



Ancient civilizations all over the world tell us it was the "gods" who created and educated mankind.  They also tell us the gods were both male and female.  The first humans were birthed in the wombs of the female gods.  The creation of Mankind is linked to the modern day global elite (Freemasons) and the biblical Elohim (the gods).    It ties in with the behavior of "God" as well.

Viracocha, Kukulkan, and Quetzalcoatl were all the same individual.  His other names were, Gucumatz in Central America, Votan in Palenque and Zamna in Izamal.    As Viracocha he was teacher to the Incas.  As Kukulkan he taught the Maya everything from Astronomy to Irrigation.  "Quetzalcoatl" was his name to the Aztecs and he taught them as well.   It is a common theme all throughout ancient civilizations.

Your government controlled Education

From birth people are programmed, parents dictate all kinds of rules and regulations to their children.  Your mind is ready for imprinting.  Your first experiences are imprinted and greatly impact the rest of your life.

The Department of Education (DOE) is a faction within the United States government.  It sets the standard for education all throughout the land. People are born into this world and educated in falsehoods schools without even realizing it.  Some grow up and become teachers teaching those lies to future generations.

Most subjects pertinent to your spiritual recovery are not present in the government controlled education system.   The truth about Freemasonry isn’t taught in public schools is it?

The making of a Robot

Where do you start if you want total control of the minds, bodies and souls of a country?  You start with the children. Both schools and churches educate the masses.   As you further your studies you will realize that this isn’t good for the people.   In fact, it turns people into robots.    Robots that do not question what they are taught.

How do you perform this systematic brainwashing of the children?  First you have to start by getting full control of the schools.   You have to be able to force the use of your materials, your methods and your value system.   Teachers must be indoctrinated in college and enrolled into a strong socialist organization to keep them straight.

The teachers are convinced that top educators and the centralized government know what’s best for your children. To handle teachers not indoctrinated, you need to punish those who would rebel, first by controlling their funding and then by passing laws which force them to use your "system".

Next, you make sure that the parents are happy with what you are doing.   HOW? What do you tell the parents? You announce a revolutionary new approach to teaching. You tell the parents that you are going to make dramatic improvements. You use positive, flowery words to put the proper "spin" on what you are doing.

You then tell the parents that this approach will help the children be more tolerant and understanding of others. The chidren will be taught social skills such as conflict resolution, self esteem, etc..

What does that REALLY mean? You teach the children that people have different values and that no set of values is superior, just a different way of looking at things. Christians are no better than Buddhists who are no better than Satanic Cults. It’s all just a "different way of viewing the world".

You know that to control people, you have to get them to stop thinking for themselves but to think for the collective good.

How do you do that? You teach the children in groups. You teach only at the level of the least intelligent. The goal is to "dumb down" the children and get them used to working only for the good of "the group".

School is nothing more than an essential support system for model of social engineering that condemns most people to be subordinate stones in a pyramidal social order.    It prepares a person from the cradle to a job in the adult world.  If you are taught lies as truth you will live the lie thinking it is the truth.

Competition, suppression and intimidation is where the mass education system is rooted.   Such a system cannot support democracy, it cannot support a fair society.

The education system divides and classifies people.  It demands that people compulsively compete with each other and publicly labeling losers by literally degrading them, identifying them as "low-class" material.   "The bottom line for the winners is that they can buy more stuff."

In the 1950’s you saw shows which depicted the family as being fully functional where the man went to work and the woman stayed home and raised and guided their children.  Today you see shows like "Married with Children" (which was on FOX network) where the family is dysfunctional.  You also see forms of soft pornography on Television today where as in the 1950’s you did not.  Television has gone from moral to immoral in just 50 years time.

We are facing a crisis where young people are indifferent to almost everything except the diversion of toys and violence.  Children are unable to concentrate on anything for very long.  They are mistrusting of intimacy, hating solitude.  Children also tend to be cruel, materialistic, dependent, passive, violent, timid in the face of the unexpected and addicted to distraction.  This is to be expected, given the lessons our schools are teaching.

The absurdity… is clear if we ask ourselves what is gained by perceiving education as a way to enhance even further the runaway consumption that threatens the earth, air, and water of our planet. Should we continue to teach people that they can buy happiness in face of tidal wave of evidence that they cannot?

The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders. Children are conditioned not to think for themselves.   They graduate from high schools as robots.

Television rivals schools, even surpassing them in controlling our children’s lives.   In the past childhood and adolescence were filled with real work, real charity and community pursuits.  With as much time most children spend in school and in front of the television, eleven hours a week is left for them to create a unique consciousness.

Television is by far the most successful mind control tool there is!   Most people go home after work and sit in front of their Televisions and watch all evening.   If you look at the past 50 years of Television what do you think you will see?

Freemasonry controls big government.    freemasonry is clearly the worship of the Devil by the elite top 5%. Luciferic layout for government center Washington D.C. and Masonic writings reflect it.     Carl Claudy, a Masonic author sums it all up is his book, "Cut through the outer shell and find a meaning; cut through that meaning and find another; under it, if you dig deep enough, you may find a third, a fourth — who shall say how many teachings?"

Many peoples beliefs are based on what they were taught.   If someone is living a lie it means their thoughts and lives are not their own.   It also means that they are easily controlled by the ones who educated them.  If this isn’t a cause for alarm, I don’t know what is!

Most of the really religious have been so brainwashed by the teachings of these demons (controllers) so that anything that contradicts what they have been taught is heresy and from the devil, so they will not listen.

Claudy specifically says that Masonry cannot be trusted.   The same can be said about the U.S. Government.   Anybody who trusts their government controlled education is opening themselves up for deception.  The thoughts of the ones who are not aware of the truth are not their own, they are living a lie.  Does The Matrix have you?  People must not be so gullible and believe everything the government tells them or teaches them.  Those who believe in an end times deception have already been deceived because it has been taught that way all through history

The "gods" (biblical Elohim) controlled every aspect of mankind’s development, teaching only what they wanted Mankind to know.  Lies disguised as half truths were and still are the foundation of their education system.

Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.

- Plato

Many Masonic secrets are not even taught in public schools.   The information is out there but who is going to seek it out when they do not realize how important it is to learn or that it even exists?

The symbols of Freemasonry can be tracked all through the history of earth.  The elite Masons (Satanists) have been with us all through history, ever since Eden, controlling and manipulating Mankind for the purpose of slavery and suffering.

The Uneducated Educated

There is a difference between vocational training and true education, and it has been cleverly blurred. Below are some tactics used by smart people to control other people.   These tactics are also seen within the world system that you live.

You must not let people know you are controlling them.  This is the first principle of people control.  If they knew this knowledge they would rebel against you.

Controlling people indirectly is easier than you might think.   Manipulating them into what ever you wanted them to think or do.

Keeping the people ignorant is one basic technique.  People who are educated cannot be manipulated easily.   A direct approach would be to restrict access to education or abolishing it.  That of course would "spill the beans."    Controlling the education they receive is the indirect approach.

It is possible for the educated such as a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, scientist or an accountant to be uneducated. As mentioned above there is a difference between vocational training and true education, and it has been cleverly blurred.  And the reason for this is?  It is so that people can successfully practice their vocations while at the same time remain totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.

The absence of original thought is the most obvious symptom.  To reveal this, ask them a question.  You will hear them recite someone elses thoughts or what they thought the answer was.  This is typical behaviour simply because they grew up learning how to use the library and cite sources.   I gave an example of this above with the "seed" and the convenience store.  This makes things easier for the controller.   With lots of money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.

Keeping them entertained is another technique.   In ancient Rome, circuses and gladiator contests were not staged because they did not have television.   We have television today because we do not have circuses and gladiator events.  The purpose is to keep the minds of the people focused on sports, political issues and entertainment either way.   They will never figure out the real issues which allow them to be controlled.

An educated person would be most difficult to control as stated above.    Someone who is economically independent is just as difficult to control.   It would be in your best interest to create conditions which will produce "wage earners".   Workers do not have much control over their economic destiny.   Controlling the monetary, credit, and banking systems would be in your best interest to control as well. What this will do is it will allow you to inflate currency and make it more difficult for wage earners to accumulate capital.  Causing the collapse of family businesses, family farms, community banks and entrepreneurs by deflation would be easy for you to do.

Shifting production jobs out of the country and then importing those products is called "free trade".   Trade unions would be kept under control using this method.  You would end up with no unions or docile unions.

Buying both political parties would allow you to control who gets into office.    Making sure your friends or "brethren" (from Freemasonry) get into office to continue with your secret agenda.   Many times people EVEN WONDER why politicians promise to change things for the better but never do?   People do not understand there is a connection there to a secret society that has its own agenda. Freemasonry has an extremely powerful presents in politics.

Eventually the populous will feel completely helpless.  They will think that all the bad things which happen are the fault of nobody in particular.   You can even offer scapegoats if needed.

Then you can ride on their backs.  They do the work while you bleed them dry while not having to worry about one of them sneaking into your home one night and slitting your throat!   If you do it right, they won’t even know whose throat they are cutting.

If you look at symbols of modern government you will see references to the Garden of Eden.  This isn’t limited to just seals of divisions within the United States government either. They are in governments all over the world. Some of these symbols refer to ancient Egypt as well. The DOE seal refers to the tree of knowledge (of good and evil).

From The Forbidden Knowledge