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.

Top Ten Excuses Women Use To Avoid Men

I’m so tired of my desperate loser friends thinking they have a shot with women they don’t. It’s just pathetic to see a man trying to prove himself to a woman over and over to no avail. They are like dogs waiting for crumbs to drop from the table. Guys!!! Get a grip!!! Women don’t want men that want them plus it’s just a woman. Yes they can have babies but they are not on this planet to be worshiped. Men in this country have been taught to worship women hoping that it leads to sex. What they don’t realize is that when you seek only sex you never see everything else some women have to offer plus chasing women almost never works. Women want men that don’t need them….period.

10) She answers the phone and hangs up when you call as if her phone has a problem. This is pretty obvious and also pretty rude but it happens a LOT!!!

9) She gave you the wrong number…………on purpose!!! Get a clue man.

She’s always hanging out with “other” friends. That means you are NOT a friend and she doesn’t want you to be.

7) She says she has to take another call when the other line hasn’t even rung from call waiting. Take a hike dude!!! She just made that up.

6) Either she or one of her close relatives is sick. Starting to get the picture now? Women don’t even need to use the period excuse anymore.

5) She changes her phone number and doesn’t offer it to you. She changed it because of you moron!!!

4) She was drunk and doesn’t remember you.

3) She has to get up early the next morning. I thought that was one of our excuses? Women are stealing our excuses!!!

2) She tells you she’s gay or a bisexual that prefers women.

1) She repeatedly promises to call you back but never does. What else could you possibly need to hear other than “Drop dead!!!”. The only reason you’re still in her phone is so she knows not to answer when you call LOSER!!!

Hopefully all of the desperate male losers out there will heed these warnings and just make yourself permanently scarce when the woman starts using them on you because you are a hair away from becoming a stalker. Trust me, you don’t want a woman that really doesn’t want you anyway because that means she’s probably using you for something else. When it’s over you’re likely broke and will still have no girlfriend. It ain’t easy getting a girlfriend when you’re broke either.

Angry because they’re alone. Alone because they’re angry.

I keep hearing all of these excuses that blame black men for the high rates of single unwed black mothers. A few are true but most are not. For instance it is said that there are simply too many women for the amount of men. That is true but not by that much. There is the truism that black men are dating outside of their race now. That is very true but the reasons for this trend are rarely stated. Black women drive black men away from them by being too headstrong and by trying to assume the role of the man in their relationships. It has nothing to do with being a strong black woman. It has everything to do with being controlling and manipulative toward the destruction of the relationship and often the entire family.

I was in a club last night and watched a black woman walk up to her friend whom she had let borrow her car. She started yelling at her and then she attacked her friend with a paroxysm of punches. Men had to jump in to stop the affray. I wondered what had happened and later found out that the friend had let her boyfriend borrow the car and he had been gone for four hours so the black woman had a reason to be upset. She did not have a reason to strike her friend. Why do black women feel they have the God-given right to assault people when they get upset without having being physically assaulted themselves? Where is this level of rage coming from and, more importantly, how do we get it under control or stop it?

I was browsing the local sheriff’s web site a few days ago to see who had been arrested on Halloween night and almost half of the them were black women who had committed assault and battery on someone. I have been recently attacked by a black woman as well who broke my nose when I refused to pay for her meal at a restaurant. This is deviant behavior and needs to be addressed as such. Say what you want about the cycle of single unwed mothers because the fathers are in jail or deadbeats but it’s black women who are making these terrible, life-impacting decisions. You are never more angry than when you are angry at yourself and black women are seething at themselves for making bad choices when it comes to men.

I believe another factor in the singleness of black women is the inability of many of them to communicate their feelings outside of anger and the “drama queen” mentality. I have seen several very attractive women at the bank where I work today in downtown Charlotte. I smiled at them and they just looked at me like I was some scum from the bottom of the ocean. This happens all the time to me and my black male friends. Black women have a chip on their shoulders and believe the world owes them something. It is false bravado to be sure but it nevertheless is creating a visceral undercurrent of black male-female hatred.

If the black community wants to reverse this negative trend of 70% or more of of black mothers being single and unwed then we have to get black women to stop having children when they are young. Obviously black young women are feeling abandoned and alone and are seeking comfort in the wrong ways and from the wrong people. It’s not anyone’s fault but yours when you choose a thug over a college-educated, stable, felony-free black man. It’s not anyone’s fault but yours when you falsely associate masculinity and machismo with the lack of intimacy, joblessness, recklessness and irresponsbility that is characteristic of thugs. That is self-hatred.

Black women have allowed the media via radio, tv and Hollywood to their minds instead of thinking clearly for themselves. It’s probably depression. It’s probably not getting enough exercise as well, which prevents depression. Angry black women know that their actions will lead them to unhappiness but they refuse to change their ways because many of them are afraid of what other people think. They don’t want to break up their little girlfriend support groups which takes us back to the abandonment issues. No one can make you happy but yourself. Another person can make you more happy or add another dimension to your happiness but you have to have a foundation of self-worth first that is unshakable. Most black women do not have it. In fact most women period do not have it. I’ll take it even further. Most men and women don’t have it. That is why relationships today are doomed to failure. Rinse, lather, repeat.

When you blame all of your problems on others it ultimately prevents you from examining the root cause in yourself. Black women buy into the media hype that black men are all gay or that we are all in prison. Nothing could be further from the truth. Black women just don’t feel like putting any effort into finding a good black man. They are out there, sometimes right in front of their faces without the baggy jeans, gold chains, grills and dreadlocks. I am one of them but I am constantly rebuffed by black women who seem to feel that they all deserve Lil Wayne or Tyrese or some other Hollywood fantasy that will never happen and wouldn’t make them happy even if it did.

Another thing that black women, and women in general, need to get over is the tradition of chivalry and men pursuing women. Those days are over. Yes there are still plenty of men who are strung out on sex who will play these pathetic gender roles but we are living in a gender neutral society today. Women need to be prepared to walk up to a man they don’t know who they find attractive and ask him out on a date or get his number to converse later. Black women simply refuse to do this. They will sit in a corner or at the bar at a club and then go home mad complaining about no black men being available when they made no effort to produce desirable results. Men are not going to chase black women anymore because many black men, and men period, are afraid of black women. The loneliness that many of them feel comes out as hot-headed anger that leads to violence on many occasions. Who wants to chase that?

Black women have gotten mentally hooked on living the high life without doing anything to achieve that goal. BET is largely to blame for this in my opinion. Black women fantasize about having a rich thug, the best of both worlds. It never happens. That’s why it’s a fantasy. This is why black men do not hang around after sex anymore. We hit and split because many young men believe that manhood is about making babies and pulling a trigger. Many black women make judgments about black men just from looking at us because the media has planted the image in your mind. So if a black man doesn’t look like a thug or like he has money then most black women will simply put you on the Do Not Call or Do Not Answer list.

Many black women have become lost in their quest for material possessions and the meaningless niceties of life. They have completely succumbed to consumerism and cast aside all spirituality that is required for true happiness in life. If the black church were doing its job this would not be so but I see no way to reverse the trend. It is not illegal to be shallow and materialistic and prone to making dumb choices in life that end up negatively branding your race. Ultimately if black women really want to be happy they need to cultivate a mindset that produces the positive results-oriented actions that lead to an increase in the likelihood of success in finding true happiness. Right now as it stands, black women are their own worst enemies because they don’t know who they are. They just want to mimic Rihanna.

Bored with Whiteness and the One-drop rule

How often do you hear white people going on and on about their non-white ancestry? Yes they go on and on about their white ancestry too but not to nonwhite people normally. White people love to be part anything nonwhite except black. The problem with that is everyone in the world is black because we all come from Africa. That scientific debate has been settled for decades now. It’s all black blood but white people persist in these multiracial delusions to perpetuate this social hierarchy. You may not be a member of the KKK but if you celebrate how different you are from other people how does that help us all come together against those who seek to enslave us as collective inferior stock? You are helping to destroy not only the bulk of humanity but yourself and your loved ones as well.

Let’s be honest here. Most white people either hate Obama, like most Republicans, or don’t trust him, like the Democrats. Liberals need Obama to feel like we are in a post-racial era, an asinine suggestion. We are still raping Africa, slaughtering Iraqis, Palestinians, Columbians, indigenous Australians and black Americans. Black people suffer disproportionately in every facet of life in America, whether it is homelessness, joblessness, public education, healthcare, life expectancy, capital punishment, redlining, bank loans, etc. Post-racial means equality for blacks because whites don’t mind leveling the playing field and then support legislative and community-based action to achieve those goals. We are nowhere close to that and never have been.

The whole social hierarchy until recently has been based on skin complexion. Blacks were the amalgam of every thing hated and wretched and still are. Mexicans are not far from it but at least they have the luxury of being positively stereotyped as hard workers, albeit dirty and sweaty. Whiteness always has to identify itself with forms of purity and cleanliness. Asians with epicanthic folds, (or as racist people call it, slanted eyes), are stereotyped as being intelligent. Indians, (also Asian but no epicanthic folds), are stereotyped as being programmers and good at starting small businesses as are Koreans. Jews fall into roughly the same mix. What about blacks? We are stereotyped as being dumb, lazy, thieving, violent, angry and oversexed. See a problem here? Post-racial implies equality for all, not just for Obama and Oprah. They are just two success stories who were lucky and useful to the powers that be. No black man or woman actually controls anything except themselves regardless of how money they have or how much borrowed white power they possess.

This is the trick that the elite played on whites. Angry whites believe the country is being ruined by Obama, as if Bush didn’t do most of the work. I’m not defending Obama. His performance thus far has been nearly atrocious on foreign and domestic fronts but just because the previous president was much worse is not an excuse for complacency or what has been in some cases, a worsening of Bush policies like in Afghanistan. White people really believe Obama is making these decisions when he isn’t. White power doesn’t take advice from black people. Black people can achieve financial success by capitulating to it however. Blacks will continue to support Democratic black leaders and reject Nader, Kucinich and McKinney because we believe that white liberals want to help us and have the means to do it. We have no faith or confidence in our own ability to craft genuine solutions for ourselves and prefer to keep taking the crumbs that fall from the corporate table. Why? Because most of us get our news from black radio or CNN most of the time, which are mouths for corporations. It takes work to find the truth and honestly black people in general ARE lazy when it comes to finding the truth out for themselves.

Having said that Obama was selected by the elite for one reason and one reason only: the continued political bifurcation of whites. Whites nullify either others’ votes and then US minority groups vote en masse to decide the election. Whites are defeating themselves with their own different forms of racism. Blacks tend to think that white liberals have their interests at heart. Wrong. White liberals are psychologically dishonest about their motives for promoting equality of the races. Ultimately their ideals socially align with those of the extreme right so why do white people want to be genetically non-white (excluding black) so badly?

I believe whites are bored with whiteness. Sixty percent of the country is white and most people we see on tv are white because our military has enslaved most of the planet and put more whites in power all over the globe. Whites are everywhere and whites have grown tired of themselves. Now there is a surge in the numbers of light-skinned blacks on tv. There is also a growing number of Hispanic people who are being classified as white by the Census Bureau because of their very light skin. Skin apparently is still in. Light-skinned nonwhites are trying to take advantage of white privilege because if white is perfection then anything close to it must be almost perfect right? It is a sick game to play and one that will in the end prove fruitless to those of all races who chose to engage in it.

Being white these days is not hip and the younger generation exemplifies this sentiment. Whiteness is just passe to them. There are more and more interracial couples everywhere you look. Even on the internet there are more and more nonwhites, even though whites clearly continue to run everything in the background. Americans are being mentally manipulated on so many fronts but there is no way to know it if everyone you know is also suffering from the same condition. Mass delusion normalizes itself. Humans view themselves through the lens of otherness. We see ourselves in the people we know and interact with on a daily basis. We mimic each other in certain ways so that we can fit in and find acceptance, a key factor in being emotionally fulfilled in our short lifetimes.

However, being bored with whiteness has nothing to do with wanting equality for nonwhites. It is simply wanting to be racist in a more inclusive fashion. Ultimately the socioeconomic racial divide continues and widens and in many cases while whites assuage their guilt with pat gestures of inclusiveness like celebrating Cinco de Mayo (not even the real independence day for Mexicans) and Diwali. These are nothing but corporate ploys to get Americans further into debt as widgets of consumerism. When non-blacks see a black man they cannot help but see whatever they have seen on tv because most non-blacks don’t know any black people personally and intimately. Ironically the one-drop rule applies to whites too because it doesn’t matter if you’re one fourth native American or one fifth Peruvian. In America your skin is what determines your race……period. If you look white then you are white. The one-drop rule is a two-edged sword. For the same reason it imprison blacks in their blackness it also imprisons whites in their whiteness. Claiming genetic exception cannot free whites from the cultural prison built and passed on to them from generation to generation by their ancestors.

Racism is a prison for everyone, not only racist people and not only white people. It enslaves everyone’s minds with what what our eyes can see. Normally the mind controls the body but with skin racism the body (the eyes) actually controls the mind.