Mentalizing the End Date

 

I think the best guess is to say, by July 13 or earlier.  July 30 is even safer.  I will expect it to maybe not be over in June, and believe that part of the issue, overall, has been infiltration of police departments.  I think the good-guy police in Houston do not know the end date for sure, and thus don't want to take a risk by signaling a date that they think it is.  The bad guy police gaslighted me, mainly just to "pledge allegiance" to the police gang leader in Virginia.


It *could* be over in June.  I am feeling safer about July 13.  There were a lot of H-E-B signalers who seemed to signal that it's July 12 or July 13.  I think that might be true.



Update:


What if Dr. Glasser is saying, "the police nationally will get better by July 30," and she doesn't think it will be because of an arrest?  It would make sense that since she was spied on, she might be sending out a message to a lot of people who are linked to her clinical practice about the police.  Maybe she's saying, "things will improve," and it's not about a specific case.


So maybe I shouldn't expect help from the FBI.  Maybe the idea is, the UPS guy and all the other people who gaslighted me will be fired and removed from their positions by July 30, and the gaslighting will stop and something else will happen.  Maybe the charges will just be dropped by the end of August, based on "police reform" within Virginia, and eventually I will get attention for my STEM work, including Godel's Lost Letter.




Another update:


Maybe the comment is, the police will improve--and it was planned since early 2022--and everyone in the communities will be "ungagged" because they will no longer be living in fear of corrupt police officers.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more