7-4-05 Bemerkungen über 1-18-02 Tatbestand
Vladimir informs me that the Jesuits are trying to make it appear that I am not a genius and, therefore, would not be a threat to them. This is an attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the production The Lawmaker, so that when it is released it won’t damage the goals of the Jesuit Order. I am going to make a statement and I want to be put under 666-Computer lie-detection as I make the statement. Here’s the statement:
Do I feel that the Jesuit Order considers me a Howard Hughes genius?
Yes, I do. Because why else would the Jesuits go to so much trouble to remove brain cells from my brain? If the Jesuits did not consider me a genius, who had goals which are the opposite of the Jesuit Order, then why would they go the trouble to remove my brain cells and diminish my intelligence? Put the Jesuits under 666-Computer lie-detection and ask them why they felt it was necessary to remove brain cells from my brain. Ask them (and all world leaders, including the Wal-Mart CEO) the following questions:
1) Have you (or someone you assisted) tried at any time (using 666-Computer/satellite technology or other technologies or methods) to diminish the intelligence or creativity of Gail Schuler? They must answer this question with “yes” or “no”. If the answer is determined to be “yes”, ask them the next question.
2) Why did you (or someone you assisted) feel it was necessary to remove or diminish the mental capacities of Gail Schuler? Throw out possibilities and analyze their response according to 666-Computer lie-detection and emotional analysis. Here are some possibilities: “Could it be that Gail Schuler is a Howard Hughes genius and you didn’t want her to have the Howard Hughes brain she was born with? Did you know that because of Gail’s Howard Hughes temperament and personality that she would never support the goals of the Jesuit Order and you wanted to insure that the genius brain she was born with would never be used against the Jesuit Order?
Once you ask the Jesuits the above two questions, they will incriminate themselves and reveal to the world that the brain I was born with, had the genius of Howard Hughes. The Jesuits will reveal by their answers to the above two questions, that my brain (in its untampered state) is of genius level intelligence. In fact, you may want to include the above two questions (asked of the Jesuits) in the film The Lawmaker.
Here are some rebuttals that I anticipate from the Jesuits:
JESUIT ARGUMENT: If Gail is such a genius, then why did she only graduate with a 3.5 GPA from Florida State University and she had to study very hard to get this GPA?
Here is my response to this argument:
I feel that my mental capacities had already been diminished by the Jesuit Order (using computer/satellite technology and other methods) before I started college, so that while I was in college, I was not operating with the mental capacity which I was born with. I also believe that the Jesuit set up the academic testing system and the academic environment at the university, so that the way that I learned material best would not be utilized. I am a global learner and if educators try to use a linear approach to educate me, then I won’t absorb the material as well as if taught by a global approach. Just because I don’t do as well as the linear learners, does not mean I have less intelligence than a linear learner. It just means I have a different learning style and that the way I was educated did not fit my learning style, and so I did not do as well as the linear learners.
My personal experience has been that most educational settings are not set up in the manner that accomodates my learning style and so test results (after I have been educated in the linear style) do not reflect my true intelligence. Besides, tests test for knowledge, not I.Q. There are several reasons a genius could do poorly on a test. If the genius is tired or ill, this will affect his performance. If the genius is distracted or bored, this will affect his performance–so a knowledge test, alone, cannot be an accurate indicator of intelligence and even more a knowledge test cannot be an accurate indicator of creative intelligence (which is where I especially excel).
JESUIT ARGUMENT: Gail took a test today at Wal-Mart, where she had to take it twice to pass. She’s certainly not a genius.
My rebuttal: This is totally unfair. First off, I was very distracted because while I took the test, I was constantly interrupted by my co-worker, who expected me to help her with her test (because she is weak at English) at the same time I was trying to learn the material, and this same co-worker prompted me to choose the wrong answer on a test question and I just blindly did what she said and then after reading the question, realized she had given me the wrong answer. This one question that I missed, caused me to have to go back and review the whole material again (not an efficient way to review). I knew the answer, but was distracted and failed to read the question carefully and trusted my co-worker too much to give me the right answer.
Secondly, this was a knowledge test and not an I.Q. test and the material was presented to me in the linear learning style, not the global learning style (which is how I do best). Besides, I didn’t do bad on the test (despite the fact it was presented to me in a manner which is not my learning style). I only missed one question the first time I took the test and this is because I was distracted by my co-worker and did not read the question carefully. I made 100% on the second test (about tobacco) on my first try.
Besides, I don’t believe knowledge tests are accurate indicators of I.Q.–for several reasons. Everyone has their own learning style and if the teacher or the presenter did not present the material in a manner conducive to one’s learning style, then the learner will do more poorly than otherwise. Also, like any scientific experiment, you must eliminate all the variables that could obscure the data. To accurately test for I.Q., one needs to take the I.Q. test well rested, not ill and most certainly not distracted and constantly being talked to by another person. If someone takes an I.Q. test with acid rock music blasting in the background, this will most certainly affect the results. All these variables which could influence the outcome must be eliminated. It’s a basic premise of scientific experimentation, that all variables which could skew the results must be eliminated in order to reach accurate conclusion. So, when I took the Wal-Mart test there were several variables involved that could skew (or confuse) the determination as to whether I possessed genius intelligence. Several of the variables which could affect the outcome were as follows: Since my co-worker prompted me to give an answer which I responded to, I was influenced by my co-worker–this contaminates the results. The test question itself, may have been worded in an ambiguous or confusing manner, and to miss such a poorly worded question does not mean a lack of I.Q. but rather a poor test or question that needs to be thrown out or better worded. I felt that the question I missed on the first test was a poorly worded question and was ambiguous, but, I was also distracted and missed a key word when I read the question.
Besides I have taken harder tests than the Wal-Mart test I took today, such as the real estate salesperson exam for WA state and passed on my first try with an impressive score, despite the fact that I took the test on 3 hours of sleep and with a stomach virus. I also passed on my first try the test for FL licensure in life, health and variable annuities and believe I achieved an impressive score. For both of these tests (which were MUCH HARDER than the Wal-Mart test), no one was talking to me or prompting me to choose answers and I believe these tests were better constructed (than the Wal-Mart test) and were more accurate indicators of my intelligence. So, if you want to use a knowledge test as an indicator of my intelligence, you need to choose a harder test with more questions (this this covers a broader range of intelligence simply because there are more questions) and one prepared by professional test preparers and a test which was taken in an ideal testing atmosphere (with quiet and no distractions and most certainly no one prompting me with answers).
But I still don’t think knowledge tests are accurate indicators of intelligence, simply because how the material was presented determines the outcome of a knowledge test. If the material was presented in a manner not the learning style of the learner or in a poor or confusing manner, then the results will not accurately reflect that learner’s intelligence.
I do believe I took an I.Q. test when I was tested by Dr. Olson (psychologist) in WA state (Seattle). I took all sorts of tests for this Dr. Olson. I believe that the results of this test indicated I had genius I.Q. Refer to the tests I took during my divorce trial in WA state in 2000. When I took this test, I was not operating with my full mental capacity, because the Jesuits had already done extensive damage to my brain (using computer/satellite technology) over the years. I recall that I suffered from dizziness as I drove to the test site and I believe that over the years the Jesuits had removed brain cells–which means that the I.Q. I was born with was higher than the results of this test, and that not only am I a genius, but a more of a genius than this test indicated. The results of this test (which I took in 2000 at the psychologist’s office) may be presented in the film The Lawmaker. This test is most certainly a more accurate indicator of my intelligence than the Wal-Mart knowledge test which I took.
JESUIT ARGUMENT: Gail has an excuse for everything. What does she feel is the most accurate measure of I.Q.?
Gail’s response: I don’t think you can measure creative intelligence with any test, and my greatest intelligence is in creative intelligence. So how do you determine creative intelligence? This is not always possible, but probably the most accurate way to determine creative intelligence would be to look at the accomplishments of the person and what assistance the person had by others to accomplish these results.
The fact that I was able to write a first novel of such high quality and to create my own style in the omniscient voice (which is the most challenging voice to write in), when the only assistance I received to write this book was my own reading of about 100 instructional books about creative writing and what I learned about writing through The Institute of Children’s Literature, I feel, is a far more accurate indicator of my creative intelligence than any test. NO ONE, and I mean, NO ONE, helped me write this book. I created the plot myself, the characters myself and did all the polishing and rewrites myself. I read the novel to Brent on my wiretapped phone, but he never ever gave me any advice or suggestions about any of it. This novel was totally my own work. I did all the rewrites myself and I did all my own critiques. I didn’t use anyone to critique the novel for me. I did all my own critiques. You may say how could you do your own critiques, because you are too close to the work? Well, I did and maybe it’s because I’m a genius.
My CONSPIRACY LAW shows a very high level of intelligence, and especially creative intelligence, since I had to write law in totally uncharted waters. I needed to understand some complex scientific and legal ideas about medicine, computers, and satellites to write this law. I had an intuitive hunch about what laws would work in trials and the courtroom and this guided me as I wrote law, since I deduced from my legal experiences with Jesuits which laws would be most effective against them. Again, my intuitive intelligence is at Howard Hughes genius level. (See my comments below about my intuitive intelligence). There were no books on this subject because the Jesuits didn’t want people to know what they were doing, so I learned about these medical/computer/scientific advances by what Vladimir explained to me and what I was able to deduce through observations and experiences with Jesuit criminals. So the writing of CONSPIRACY LAW (in which I received very minimal assistance from Vladimir) is a much more accurate indicator of my intelligence than any Wal-Mart knowledge test (which only measures what I studied for about a half hour and in which there were many distractions and not an ideal learning atmosphere).
On the other hand, my CONSPIRACY LAW and my novel Silver Skies were projects that spanned many years and so measure my intelligence over a period of years rather than over a half hour period where distractions and other things could cloud the picture.
There was no law out there to deal with the pioneering computer/satellite technology which the Jesuits used and this is just why I decided I needed to be the one to write this law, because someone had to do it, because what the Jesuits were getting away with was just not right. Because of my personal experiences with the Jesuits and my knowledge about their methods and their mindset, I felt I was most qualified and so I tackled the challenge. The assistance I received from Vladimir was minimal and he never told me how to write the law. He just told me what was going on and how the enemy responded to my law and he would give me general ideas about what laws needed to be written, but when it came to the actual writing of the laws and all the fine-tuned details–that was all my own work.
I make a lot of mistakes at work (Wal-Mart) and many of these are Jesuit-induced amnesia bouts and mental slips. Just because a genius has a mental slip or amnesia (induced by computer/satellite interference with their brain) does not mean that person is not a genius.
JESUIT ARGUMENT: If you are so smart, why do you need a calculator to do simple arithmetic at your cashier job?
Gail’s answer: I don’t trust my brain in short intervals. This is because I know the Jesuits can give me brief mental lapses and can interfere with my brain for short periods of time. So, since I don’t trust my brain over short periods of time, I prefer to play it safe and use my calculator. Though in most instances, I probably don’t need the calculator, but I just don’t trust my brain in short intervals, because I know the Jesuits love to manipulate my brain and have used computer/satellite technology to induce me to make “quick” mistakes. Usually, I catch the mistake once the brain interference ends. Whenever I need to use the calculator at work, I always feel like the Jesuits set up the whole thing in advance to make me look stupid and what can one do with an enemy that can use computer/satellite technology to give you brief mental lapses? Better to play it safe and use a calculator. Though there have been times when my calculator was wrong and I caught the error.
By the way, when I was 11 years old I was the spelling bee champion for my elementary school and I never studied one minute of spelling for it. So this indicates an unusual mind. I always made A’s in spelling and I never ever studied. Though, interestingly, my spelling abilities have declined over the years–have the Jesuits been messing with my brain?–YOU BET.
My own personal observation about my intelligence is as follows: My most brilliant ideas come to me when I’m relaxed, not tense, and when I dream or just let my imagination wander. It seems my most brilliant ideas come to me first thing when I wake up in the morning (not sure why–maybe it’s because my brain is relaxed and more imaginative–the stress of the day hasn’t hit me yet) and when I just “go with” some of the crazy ideas or “hints” I think about that I wouldn’t dare discuss with anyone except my closest and dearest friends. When I fish into my subconscious and dare to explore those regions of my mind that are more intuitive than they are logical, I come up with my most brilliant concepts. I seem to have an intuitive genius, more than a logical genius and come up with my most brilliant concepts when I have the courage to just let my mind explore its intuitive side and just go with my “hunches” and flow in an intuitive direction.
What I think is going on is that those intuitive sections of my mind are the parts of my brain which the Jesuits have not been able to tamper with and this is where my Howard Hughes level of intelligence resides. It’s hard to get at and I can only reach it when I let my mind wander and go with its hunches and when I’m relaxed and not trying to conform to some deadline or mold. When I rely totally on direct logic, rather than intuition, I feel my intelligence is nothing extraordinary. In my intuitive state is where my greatest genius lies and you can’t measure intuition with a test. Perhaps it is the direct logic side of my genius which the Jesuits have undermined and they don’t have the ability to undermine my intuitive side. Perhaps my intuitive side, represents the part of my brain which is sort of “caved under” and simmering and is the genius side which has not been totally repressed, and which seeps out in bits and pieces and when I explore my intuition–it’s like tapping into the genius groundwater, which the Jesuits have pretty much concealed, undermined and blocked off with their computer/satellite manipulation of my brain. Perhaps when I get back the brain I was born with, then my direct logic intelligence will match my intuitive intelligence.
I perceive that it was my intuitive genius that wrote most of CONSPIRACY LAW and my novel and this intuitive genius is at a Howard Hughes level of intelligence. At Wal-Mart, I’m under time pressures and people are watching me and I’m not relaxed, so my intuitive side goes under and I rely more on direct logic, which I feel is about average level (because this is where the Jesuits have successfully attacked my brain and removed brain cells). At home on my computer, my intuition flourishes, because at home I’m more relaxed and feel free to explore my intuitive side. And, for some reason, the Jesuits have been unable to diminish my intuitive intelligence. So, perhaps, my intuitive I.Q. is a more accurate assessment of the brain I was born with.
Electronically signed: Gail Chord Schuler
Place: Melbourne, FL