Service to the Country = Service to the Rich

We always hear how we should honor the troops for their service to the country. Service? The only service most military personnel make is to enrich corporations by killing the people who have lived there for centuries and then allowing corporations to come in and steal whatever resources are available. Sometimes it’s just a strategic location for a military base but ultimately it all comes back to theft of natural resources to enrich global corporatists. These few and filthy rich scumbags are the ones that the soldiers die for, not for our freedoms nor for Americans nor the cause of liberty. People are free when they are willing to die for their freedom. Americans haven’t been willing to die for anything in centuries except a Hardee’s ThickBurger. We are mere pawns of their government. We do as we’re told and ask no questions. The media is completely compromised and complicit in this coverup of reality and murder of innocent, poor young people who join the military mostly to earn a consistent paycheck and a name for themselves. What is the honor in that?

Many enlistees want to serve their country but you don’t do that by killing people that are different from you whether they’re communists, Muslims or nonwhites just so rich people can become richer. When these kids come home in boxes no one cares. When they come home injured the government turns their back on them and drops their benefit coverage. If they come back in one piece they are likely to redeployed for a second tour of duty. The whole time the next generation of soldiers are being trained with Xboxes and PS3’s to kill and maim innocent people vis a vis games like “Tour of Duty”.

That is not service to your country. It is service to the rich. Neither is it service to the country for American civilians to honor this behavior with feigned allegiance to God and country. What we’re really saying is white nationalism and Manifest Destiny are still in effect and ok. It’s wrong for the elite to give young people no other choice but to commit evil to earn a living. They have ruined most of those young minds forever but I also submit that the military is not the last option for many of these poor rural white youths. I believe many of them are simply racist and jump at the opportunity of blowing up some “darkies”. That is wrong. It is also wrong for Americans to sit back and watch this happen right under our noses and give support to it with our tax dollars when it has been PROVEN beyond any doubt WHATSOEVER that 9/11 was a controlled demolition with ties back to Israel’s Mossad. We are all wrong.

We dishonor and disgrace the dead and the living when we Pollyanna ourselves to death with visions of patriotism that are nothing but fawning obeisance to global white supremacy. We are not protecting anyone’s freedoms. We are destroying our own and those of people all around the world. This federal government is pure evil. I don’t care about the crumbs they may drop here and there to cover their tracks or make it appear that we are the good guys. We are the bad guys. We have been the bad guys since Europeans arrived in America, slaughtered the native American population, enslaved and lynched Africans, interned the Japanese, etc. The little good we do for image control can never outweigh the carnage we have and continue to cause and promote in the false name of freedom. As long as the elite control the media and most Americans are unwilling to seek alternative forms of information, as well as putting aside petty differences of race, religion, sexuality, etc., this country will country the long and treacherous slide into oblivion. Honestly, we deserve it……….but I don’t.

And HELL NO!!!!!! I’m not leaving the country or going back to Africa because black people have been in America even before the native Americans. Africa, South and North America were all once joined. This is OUR land and I will stay as long as I feel like it’s safe to do so even though it’s not worth saving any more. It’s almost time to find a new homeland and allow the Great Beast to fall on her hideous face. Who knows what will emerge from the carnage?

In Defense of Religion

First off let me say that religion is indefensible but I had to do something to get you to start reading this post. There is nothing about the major religions or any other (save Buddhism) that could possibly be true, whether you are a literalist or not. Yes some religions are loosely historically based like Christianity but a lie mixed with the truth is still a lie.

Religion had a useful purpose initially for humans as we evolved. It helped us explain the unexplainable. Now we have science for that although we are still very limited in what we can do but since science has usurped one of religion’s two roles, the only one left for religion now is comfort. People want their religion for comfort. They also want it so they can say they are part of a group. That means people outside of that group are basically heretics and we all know how we used to burn those people at the stake. It is this comfort factor that keeps religion going. It is the belief that if you believe then God will favor you over others. It is utterly illogical that a God that loved everyone would demonstrate it by preferring one group of people over another, Jews or anyone else. The contradictions don’t matter, however, when something as critical as comfort is at stake.

When I say comfort what do I really mean? It is clear that many people are suffering today in this country and abroad. Why do they still believe when they suffer so much? Because suffering is like money to religious people. The more you have the better seats you get at the game. Even though believers do not wish to suffer, and some that do eventually reject religion, when it is inevitable they suck it up and think about how much greater their reward will be in the afterlife, which I affectionately call the afterlie.

There is no afterlife for humans. Why? Because there is no afterlife for anything. We are just like other lifeforms except two major ways that have blinded religious people: technology and emotion. We can make things and solve problems. We can feel happy and sad. Those two reasons alone give humans the hubris to consider ourselves worthy of souls while all other lifeforms get nothing. I suppose this is another form of comfort to believers, that humans are somehow special and animals and plants are not, even though we all came from them.

I know this doesn’t sound like much of a defense of religion so far but my defense of religion is that you can never take a person’s comfort from them, by any means. As long as nonbelievers do not understand this and keep trying to rationalize the obvious contradictions with believers the debate can go nowhere. It is true religion is dying but not because people are becoming atheists. People are becoming more secular and still spiritual. They are coming to accept that fact that the dogmatic theism is a bunch of crap but many believers don’t even know their own dogma. To them it is merely a comfort machine. Those people will hold dear to religion forever until the comfort is gone.

The only way to destroy someone’s comfort is to ruin their lives in this world and their hope for the afterlife. We are seeing plenty of that from corporate and political corruption. Retirement is sort of a pre-afterlife and Wall Street has destroyed much of that for the older generation and the younger generation as well since they are constantly becoming older. One would think religious piety would increase when suffering increases but apparently many people are giving up on it because they see the hypocrisy inherent in so many of its institutions thanks to the far right. Religion has created many more atheists and agnostics than atheists and agnostics ever could. That is how you fight religion. Sit back and wait. Lies are unsustainable because one always leads to another.

There is no point in trying to convince someone their religion is wrong. Religion is not about logic. It is about feeling. Humans fear the future because it is uncertain. Humans fear death because it may be painful and it may be the end of existence for them. We used to fear the dark because animals would try to kill us. We all have the fear of the dark in us. It is one huge reason that darker skinned people are so oppressed. That’s why I believe it’s stupid for blacks to practice Christianity. Christianity in its modern form was constructed for whites and whites only. It is a Jim Crow religion. Whites took their fears of darkness and formed a religion out of it to give them comfort and now black people want to practice a religion that was created to give comfort to whites that blackness, darkness and evil would be defeated one day? Christianity is the reason for white racism. It has justified every horrific crime of Europe since its incarnation and even to this very day.

Religion is all about comforting us of our fears. That’s all. Eventually religious people are all going to realize that the comfort religion provides is false because it is not based in reality. That cognitive dissonance has to be resolved and with growing numbers of secular people there will be even more and more pressure on each religious individual to conform with the norm. We will be laughing about religion in a few hundred years….all of us. I’m laughing already and so are growing numbers of people around the world. Of course I am assuming that a religious nuclear war doesn’t break out before then and wipe out humanity. That prophecy may indeed precede believers coming to their senses but imagine a world where the people cannot be politically manipulated using religion. It’s not that far away. If only we could do the same with race.

Why I’m Thankful For Me

Ever since I was a child in grade school I have been a diligent student. Yes I learned a lot of lies from the public education system which is designed to relegate black achievement to the virtual dustbin of history but nonetheless I was able to rise above most others. That put me in a position today where I now have a relatively easy time finding a job even in tough economic times because my tenacity is so much higher than other people’s.

Some people will want to credit my parents for making me study and having a strict regimen. I’m sure that had its benefits. It also caused me a huge social price when it came to friends or at least those people that most people would call friends. There are always trade-offs but this world is not run with facts and science. It is run by social connections. You can be a complete moron if you know the right people and make millions. I don’t wish I had gone that route but if your parents say they want the best for you then that usually means the most money. Parents should be telling their kids to put down the books and go meet some kids outside.

What I’m most thankful for is to finally get a little remuneration for all of my hard work. It’s not enough and I still suffer from racial oppression in subtle and institutionalized ways that will not be resolved in my lifetime. That’s not ok but I do enjoy seeing the people who never studied and could have. Most of them are now completely broke and cannot even pay attention. That was their whole problem from the beginning. Maybe they came from bad families. Maybe they just didn’t care. Maybe they had so many friends and connections that they thought those would get them through. Well it didn’t. You cannot count on people these days. Americans are selfish to the core. Sure there are about five percent of us who care. So what? That’s almost no one.

I’m also thankful that I do not care about money. I enjoy it but I don’t need it. I could care less about money, the purified white abstraction of filth and blackness. I could live on almost nothing with no debt and no kids. I don’t buy expensive clothes. I feel no pressure to behave in certain ways to impress people. I am 100% myself and that is something I could have only given to myself. People hate me for it but who cares? Who cares what kind of car I have? It’s a nice one but I would take once that just run. I could stuff my face all day if I wanted but I eat several small meals a day. I never overeat.

Once consumerism has you in its grasps either from pressure on yourself or from others, it ruins your life and that is how most Americans live their lives: trying to keep up with the Joneses. Not me. Not now. Not ever. The system and culture of waste and excess failed when it comes to me. No one can bribe me or blackmail me. There is nothing material that can be taken from me that I care about. I’ve made mistakes and I am not ashamed of them one single bit. Not anymore. I forgave myself and moved on. If others didn’t then that’s their problem. You can never love someone else until you love yourself and loving yourself is all about expressing yourself and being yourself regardless of the peer and social pressures to conform.

So on this Day of Remembrance for native Americans I am thankful to be able to rub my relative financial success in the face of dumb asses who never studied and though it was cool in high school. This is my reward. Good luck in that soup kitchen line losers. I’ll be chilling in Brazil when this failed experiment of a country collapses and the elite come to collect your souls.

Nice Guys Finish First. Thugs Finish Last.

I can remember the sayings “Nice guys finish last” and “Women like bad boys” from the time I was a child. I remember the “Fonz” on “Happy Days” getting all of the women and Hollywood bad boys like James Dean. One of the main problems with America is the average person’s inability to know when they are being manipulated by the media via social engineering. Then peer pressure from all of the other people who have been manipulated to behave in a certain way gets to the people, including myself sometimes, who know better because they want to fit in because being alone is one of the worst ways to exist as a human.

The fact is that women do like bad boys because they are animalistic and uncontrollable. They represent manliness in a shallow manner and that attraction is deeply rooted in womens’ genes and psyches via evolution. The problem with that natural instinct in a modern world is that it is counterproductive to a financially secure lifestyle and maybe to womens’ physical safely. Many women do not need a man to take care of them financially but almost ALL women (straight ones that is) need a man to take care of them emotionally. What is more important? And when did “care” come to mean money instead of love? It depends on the person and their priorities which are largely influenced by a hyperconsumptive culture but honestly you should not want someone that puts money before love because that means they will put it before you eventually. We all say that love is more important than money but very few of us actually behave in a way that demonstrates we really believe it.

Most women don’t want to be physically or emotionally abused by dominating and controlling thugs but to many of them it does bring excitement to their boring lives if they are alone and have no interests outside of bemoaning not being able to find a good man when in fact they are standing in their own way. It is a poor substitute for a healthy relationship and actually prevents a healthy relationship from forming but it nonetheless fills in the blanks temporarily. Thugs are nothing but sex substitutes for real love. They don’t care about themselves even though they profess bravado to the contrary. Real men don’t have to pretend to be hardcore to get women. but women hate being alone much more than men do. They intensely fear it so even though they know it’s a dead end many women engage in these sexual and emotionally abusive relationships because to them it seems better than nothing plus that animal instinct turns on most women. Thugs basically trick women into getting aroused without having to actually care for them. A thug does not have to wear baggy jeans, a grill, dreadlocks, Tims and a gold chain. He can be a brother like me with a college degree and a full time corporate job. As long as he demonstrates a lack of concern for and interest in the welfare of the female at all times nonsexual he can be considered a thug. If women want a real man that acts thuggish since it’s such an aphrodisiac then women should stop trying to emasculate men. Then thugs will become worthless because women will not need them. I met a girl last night who admitted she liked being booty-called by thugs but then she turned around and asked me if I could submit her resume to my company for employment. Why? What is she going to do? Get on her financial feet and then blow it on the legal fees for a thug? Is she going to get knocked up and then get mad at all good black men because the thug doesn’t want to even see her during the day? You have to be healthy yourself to have a healthy relationship. It takes two healthy people. Two unhealthy people just make each other more unhealthy.

Women are being confused by their natural instincts, social engineering and what they know is good for them and Oprah isn’t helping. They want the thug to avoid the loneliness and emptiness. They want to be independent because of hyperfeminism and so men don’t think they’re golddiggers. They also want to be genuinely loved. The problem is women are trying to solve long term problems with short term solutions. Mature women don’t date little boys. Thugs are little boys. They act that way only to attract silly women who are easy to seduce because they have been watching too much BET. Real men are manly without being abusive and neglectful. They have interests outside of women but make time for the right woman in their life. That is the way it should be. It should have nothing to do with money but compatibility. If money is one of your compatibility factors then you are a shallow, empty, hollow shell of a human that does not deserve a good man. You will in time be your own undoing. If women want love then they have to let go of feminism. Feminism is not the same thing as equal rights and equal pay for the same job. It is gender neutrality that ignores critical differences between the sexes that allow us to complement each other. It goes against nature and against God.

Sometimes I do feel sorry for the plague of women addicted to thug love substitutes. It’s like those women that live in the city and use their tiny dogs as boyfriend substitutes but just like money thugs can never make you happy. They can make you feel excited only because of the contradictions between having sex with them and their subsequent neglect. Women are enthralled by not being about to control thugs and the challenge of changing a man but are never attracted to a man that they actually do change. Quite ironic isn’t it? But thugs do not own the market on being their own men. In fact they are really just doing a poor imitation of real men. Real men listen to women but are not controlled by them. Real men do what they want. They just make room for women in their lives and the women makes room for them. I am a real man. I never sit around waiting on women. I spend my time improving myself in any way that I can whether it’s learning new things or staying in shape or whatever. It’s not done to impress women. I don’t care what ALL women think. I only care what the woman I love thinks because I know I could never love an insecure, needy woman who has no idea of how to treat a real man. Real men don’t have to take care of women. They want to take care of real women. Real women don’t have to take care of themselves. Real women want a man to take care of them. When I say “care” once again I mean emotionally, not financially. Money matters only to people who make it matter. Ultimately thugs are not real men. They are boys dressed up in men’s clothing and it’s usually twelve sizes too big for them. If you have one or more I suggest you pawn them and start saving up for a real man. You won’t find us on BET.

Sarah Palin: 45th President of the United States

I have no doubt that Sarah Palin will be the 45th President of the United States. This is a pattern with the elite. The Democrats and Republicans are only there to scuffle over who serves the elite so the popularity of the duopoly between the two parties just vacillates depending on which one has done the most damage for the elite the most recently. That is usually the incumbent party which means the other Republicrats win the next election. Sometimes one party wins two or three elections in a row but that is no longer possible in this era of extremism.

The elite use Americans’ emotions like a yo-yo. They know the type of people that liberals and conservatives will support. Liberals need smart people like Obama and Clinton. They knew conservatives would love Bush II because he wore cowboy boots, demonstrated coarse bravado and spoke like an idiot. The same conservatives will love Palin because she is pretty and dumb and pretty dumb. She is completely unqualified to be president and that is why the white masses of poor people have and will continue to embrace her. They will express their racism through her and that’s why Sarah Palin will be inaugurated on January 20, 2013. Mark my words.

My Hero: Dennis Kucinich on the Goldstone Report

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz ‘confession’ testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby’s newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane’s remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

Example: ‘How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America’s finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 – become incredulous and indignant)?

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

‘You can’t prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his ‘proof’ that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn’t. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that’s been floating around the Internet for months.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre’s document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger’s credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 – create rumor mongers)?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: ‘If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don’t exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 – use a straw man)?’

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ’sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: ‘You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics — does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 – sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?’

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

Example: ”This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.’ Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading ‘this crap’, why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?’

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Example: ‘With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are ‘lies’, why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – question motives)?’

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

‘You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8’s (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams — for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I’m not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite ‘Jane’s-like’ information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 – invoke authority)?’

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Example: ‘Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 – play dumb)?’

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Example: ‘Flight 553’s crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won’t revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 – associate charges with old news)?’

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Example: ‘Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 – establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?’

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: ‘I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?’

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

Example: ‘The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story — often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven’t reported it, so there can’t have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony ‘confession’ by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn’t print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 – Alice in Wonderland logic)?’

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: ‘Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray’s innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: ‘The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.’

Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?’

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

Example: ‘You can’t say Paisley is still alive… that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can’t you accept the Police reports?’ This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren’t his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it — all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 – vanish evidence and witnesses)?’

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Example: ‘There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn’t happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.’ Assistant’s response. ‘You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what’s wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on…’ One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one…

Proper response: ‘You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic — a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?’

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ’sensitive they are to criticism.’

Example: ‘You are such an idiot to think that possible — or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the ‘gubment’ is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.’ After a drawing an emotional response: ‘Ohhh… I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What’s the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help…’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let’s here it — preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 – emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?’

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: ‘All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press — as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team — as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, — about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren’t qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 – ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?’

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy ‘confession’, since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose ‘Solidarist confession’ was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 – false evidence)?’

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA’s METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own “research findings”, that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about — or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the ‘news flap’ or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 — send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn’t work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don’t, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now distinct traits:

Why Agnosticism is Correct (and Religious Certainty is Wrong)

After believing I was a Christian for most of my life because it was forced on me by my parents, I realized about a decade ago that not only was I an agnostic but that everyone else should be as well. That may sound authoritarian but agnosticism is not the embrace of any religion. It is not bold nor arrogant nor anything but practical. It is nothing less than the rejection of all theism but leaves the door wide open to any personal belief in the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural, omniscient being. Believers give short shrift to anyone that disagrees with them and instinctively lump agnostics into the same category with atheists regardless of the obvious distinctions between them. Atheists are actually more like believers in that they claim to be absolutely certain of their beliefs, something which is unreasonable given the fact that the truth is scientifically unknowable. Agnostics refuse to believe anything about which they cannot be sure and sure in this sense means whatever evidence, scientific or otherwise, would be required to provide that level of surety.

The technical definition of an agnostic is someone who acknowledges that it is impossible with the current level of human knowledge to determine the exact nature of any God or even if one exists. That is intellectual honesty, not necessarily absent of any fear of death or uncertainty but definitely weakness that could be exploited by religious charlatans. Religion is basically man’s guesses about God. None of them could possibly be right because they are just that. I know some religions claim that their prophets were divinely inspired. Who in this world has not been at some point? It doesn’t mean you’re right and people two thousands years should be no more favored to receive this knowledge than humans today. God would not play favorites if we were all equally loved in its eyes. Are we more evil today than back in biblical times and that explains why God does not reveal itself to us anymore? No. There was murder, rape, incest, sodomy, usury and everything else evil that humans are capable of during biblical times. You can clearly see that we have no changed much in a few thousand years.

Webster defines an agnostic as “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god”. The question then becomes is the true nature of God knowable or unknowable? How do we know if something is knowable if we don’t know it? What are the criteria for something that would be knowable and how do we know what those are? As you can see you quickly descend in an infinite loop of unknowability. Religious people believe that the true nature of God is knowable, however. How? Faith. They believe that God exists simply because they believe that God exists and it provides them hope and comfort in their daily lives that death is not the end. It also helps them lower their expectations for this life since that afterlife holds the key to perfect bliss. There is little reason to seek happiness in this life of seventy years when you can have eternal happiness after this relatively brief existence. That fact is very useful to the atheist people in power who want the masses to not expect much from life. The atheistic elite know religion is a weakness that allows them to manipulate elections, start wars, raise money, demagogue others, etc. Regardless of what you may think of Marx as a whole, religion remains the opiate of the hopeless masses.

If there is a God do we really believe that it cares about the distinctions and differences between the hundreds of religious man has created over time? Why would an all powerful God care about something so uniquely trivial and particular to the human condition? God created everything, not just humans. It is nothing short of unrestrained hubris and outright arrogance to claim such a thing as to know what God wants. That is exactly the type of hubris that I came to expect that God would hate. So not only do believers claim to be so great as to know what God thinks but they also all claim to have the divine right to punish those who happen to differ somewhat in their dogma.

But people, despite their hopeless romanticism, are not stupid. Even most believers realize how utterly impossible the story of Noah is just to use a Christian example. Most nonbelievers or doubters just don’t discuss it with religious literalists because it is not politically correct to discuss such intimately personal things. It invariable leads to heated debate, altercation, assault or even homicide. Believers really take religion that seriously! We see the evidence of it daily in the news of the weird and extreme. Religion is a numbers game for us nonbelievers who doubt it without expressing that fact. We know there are social penalties to pay for coming out of the non-belief closet. Some of those penalties are obvious to us and others may not be. We may be passed over for a promotion at work and not know why. We may be refused a loan at the bank if the person who decides knows that we are a nonbeliever. There is no way to know when you have been discriminated against in this way and we certainly don’t want to be accused of playing the “atheist” card do we?

One of the major hurdles to overcoming the scourge of religion beyond how it is promoted by the elite who need it to control us is how humans interpret events in their lives and minds as being spiritual or transcendent. To believers things that are really just chance take on a whole new significance. We believe that our feelings are not contained within and caused by our physical body which manifests itself mentally and emotionally, but that we are actually connecting back to our creator when these feelings become very intense. That is human but proves nothing except that we are still very much similar to our ancestors in inventing myths to explain things we either cannot or refuse to understand. Many believers simply refuse to acknowledge what they know is true. As Richard Dawkins recently stated in a lecture promoting his latest book, that is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and those people have no place among the rest of an evolving and progressive humanity.

Did Your Children Want To Be Born?

I know this sounds like an asinine question but is it really so outrageous? I’ll be honest. Given the state of the world, how hard black people have to work just to still be considered inferior relative to whites and all the other struggles that blacks have to endure at the hands of white supremacy collectively, I can honestly say I would rather not have been born. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suicidal. I don’t have a death wish. I’m just thinking about this logically from a standpoint of the worthwhile-ness of our collective struggle. Honestly black people as a whole have begun to fall further behind since the progress of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Most of us just try to get our piece of the corporate pie rather than building grassroots organizations and other institutions of self-determination. Maybe I’m part of the problem too but I was not born with the ability to galvanize people like MLK and Malcolm X. In our current state blacks have basically caved in to white supremacy. Our indoctrination is complete. The resistance is all but dead.

The naysayers are going to attack me for being a quitter but I’m not a quitter. People who commit suicide are quitters. I’m in the struggle until the end of my life now. There is no courageous escape beyond death for me now that I am here and committed to the task at hand but I have no further illusions about the progress black people as a whole can make anymore. The money always gets to us and we forsake the masses. It’s the same with all the races though. Part of white supremacy is convincing you that your race is somehow different from the others so it makes people want to distance themselves from their own. The media makes us think that blacks steal more, kill more, rape more, etc. Wrong. If you want to know who steals the most you need not look further than the recent banking debacle and the mortgage crisis.

My mother told me that having children was an expression of the love shared between her and my father. Why does that require bringing another human being into the world, especially now with human survival itself on the precipice of uncertainty? I believe it is a selfish act in all honesty. I believe having children without carefully considering the range of possibilities of their futures first is an abhorrent act of hubris and gene experimentation, just like forcing children to adopt your religion as a parent. Who wants to be born to live a horrible life? I’ll bet if all the people who have lived terrible lives and died could have been asked if they preferred to have never been born that most of them would have opted for nonexistence. My life isn’t that bad from a material standpoint but that’s not what life is supposed to be about. I would take an ounce of pure happiness with nothing to eat. I would take a close family over a trillion dollars. I would take the honesty of my fellow man over houses, cars and women.

Parents who are in love want to see what a child by their partner will look like, act like and grow up to be like. They believe they have a winning combination of genes because the love brain chemicals are telling them how great the other person is. It is an illusion though and not an expression of shared love. It’s throwing the gene dice and hoping for a positive outcome. All I’m saying is parents should look at their genetic history as much as possible and use that information to make a decision about whether they are likely to produce happy and fruitful offspring. Of course you can never predict the future. Meteorologists cannot even predict the weather but if you have a history of alcoholism in your family and your has a history of malignant cancer then maybe you should reconsider, adopt or find a more genetically suitable partner. Maybe gene therapy holds the answers to these questions but we’ve already been playing God for far too long.

The Black Female Quest for Diva-hood

I’m so tired of hearing overly headstrong and insecure black females with no self-identity proclaiming to the world that they are divas. Webster defines a diva as “a usually glamorous and successful female performer or personality”. First of all the people calling themselves divas are usually not performers of any kind although some of them are glamorous. That’s like saying that milk and ice cream are the same thing. They aren’t.

Webster also defines a diva as a prima donna. The second definition of prima donna is “a vain or undisciplined person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team”. That sounds closer to the truth for most black women claiming diva status. Black women worship their favorite music stars like Mariah Carey and Rihanna and try to imitate them but they fall far from success. Real divas bring people together, not tear them apart.

Black women are in serious need of role models but divas are not the same thing as drama queens. Chaka Khan is a diva. Patti Labelle is a diva. Aretha Franklin is a diva. Teena Marie is a white diva. A loudmouth ghetto chickenhead who always starts fights at the club in her new outfit is not.