Since Black people are also involved in the mental illness scam,
you may wonder why would they go along with having more blacks being
schizophrenic? I am positive that mental illness is a scam and positive
the mind can be manipulated but this is just an explanation that I came
up with for the racial difference in schizophrenics. I have pondered
that issue and came to the conclusion that black people wanted to have
sex with white people and the psych industry is able to manipulate minds
so that white people who would normally not want to have sex with black
people are "brainwashed" into doing so. This is not mental illness since
it is seen as "normal" through the promotion of Hollywood as a "deal" to
integrate black people with white people. Television shows slowly made
black people being couple with white people appear acceptable and that
would flow into other media outlet. Looking at the history of white and
black relation, white people do not want to have sex with blacks. Blacks
were brought to the USA for slavery and it was acceptable to white
people at the time. Black people were weak and were sold as slave to
those willing to pay the price. Black people were "slower" to white
people in terms of knowledge about weapons, farming, etc, so they lost
to white people and were looked at as uneducated and dumb at the time.
Black people were property to white people and not even considered
"people" at the time. Black people were treated unequal to white and it
was acceptable to the white people at the time. Black people weren't
allowed to vote and it was acceptable to the white people at the time.
White people wanted to segregate themselves from blacks such as barring
them from entering some stores which was acceptable at the time. In
other words, white people do not like black people as the examples
demonstrate. In the history of mankind, white people having sex with
black people is a new phenomenon because it is manipulation. White
people are being brainwashed to have sex with black people and black
people benefited because they became integrated with white people who
were in charge of the country at the time. This "deal" may explain why
black people who are in the mental illness scam would go along with
having more black schizophrenics. The victims of the mental illness scam
are also white people who were brainwashed to have sex with black people
to create a mix race which gave the perception of accepting black people
into a white country. Black people are not "good" looking to white
people free from mind manipulation as the history of white people and
black people relation shows. It is mind manipulation that the psych
industry does that allowed the dark skin black to become "attractive" to
white people. Whether you like the outcome or not, manipulating
someone's mind is criminal.

     What about a man's penis size, the "myth" that is spread about
black men would it be a factor for white women to mix with black men?
According to research on penis, "Men the world over have similar size
penises. You see men of all races and nationalities on naturist (nudist)
beaches in Europe and they are all about the same size."
<http://destroypsychiatry.org/links/What_is_the_average_penis_size_by_...>
People do discriminate with who they have sex with. Why don't you people
who are heterosexual have sex with homosexual, would you be called
homophobic because you discriminate? Suppose a heterosexual man refuses
to have sex with a homosexual man, can he be blamed for discriminating?
The same can be said about homosexual, why don't you have sex with
heterosexual, would you be called heterophobic because you discriminate?
Suppose a homosexual man refuses to have sex with a heterosexual woman,
can he be blamed for discriminating? Take for instance the history of
the presidents of the USA from George Washington with wife Martha
Dandridge Custis Washington to the current mix black president Barack
Hussein Obama with wife Michelle Obama, all follow the logical path of
discrimination in regards to choosing a sexual partner. The question to
explore is how did dark skin black in the USA came to mix with the white
people in the USA who brought them in the country by way of slavery when
people do practice discrimination in regards to sex like all the
presidents of the USA. Would we consider the president of a country like
the USA be poor in judgment in comparison to the average person?

     In a natural state, white people in the USA from a historical
viewpoint have demonstrated their dislike of black people. Since white
people from a historical viewpoint were in charge of the country that
would mean that the treatments given to black people were done so
because white people wanted to do it as nobody were forcing white people
to behave in such a manner. The treatments were very negative-black
people were like property where they can be traded from a historical
viewpoint. This is the true nature of how white people feel towards
black people. Countries do have war with each other, people in the same
country can also have war with each other, but when you enslaved a whole
group of people for the sake of being slave, that isn't war, it is how
you feel about the group. White people were dominating as a race
compared to black people so white people used their domination to serve
their purpose. The nature of white people wanting to have sex with black
people given the dislike of black people doesn't make sense. The USA at
the time had enough white people that there wasn't a need to mix with
black people so the mixing of the race is manipulation. As logical
people wouldn't it make sense to mix with someone closer to your own
appearance? Personally, I would rather mix with white people than black
people given the two choices as white people are closer in appearance to
me in terms of hair and skin than black people. Personal preference
isn't racism because we are talking about sex. Sex is an individual
preference and we can treat one another fairly in other aspect of our lives.

     Let us take a look into the beauty pageant industry. Does anyone
believe that "we are all beautiful inside" coming out from a contestant
from a Miss Universe contest? Why isn't there an overweight well
educated women winning in these competition? It is because people see
beauty on the outside so anyone who gives an answer "we are all
beautiful inside" from a Miss Universe contest is a liar. In the Miss
Universe contest, each country selects its best to represent it so we
are comparing the best of the best. So when the judges of the contest
are  light skin who select a dark skin winner, then the light skin
judges are saying their kind is uglier since this is a beauty contest.
When an outcome like this happens then we have to question why would
that be the case? There can be manipulation at work since the best of
your own kind is judged to be uglier. Also, there isn't any bald female
involved in the Miss Universe contest either. So it appears that fat,
bald, midget, big ass, hairy facial, etc, female are not viewed as
"beautiful" in these contest so there is a "standard" of beauty. So the
Miss Universe contest is a judgment of physical beauty not of inner
beauty because anyone who doesn't fit the standard of physical beauty
for the contest would not even enter the contest as history of the
pageant demonstrates. But the Miss Universe pageant is not consistent
when one looks at the winner of the contest. For instance, Great
Britain[0], China[0], Korea[0], Ireland[0], Indonesia[0], Vietnam[0],
Ukraine[0], Italy[0], Albania[0] don't seem to have any winner yet
Japan[2], Thailand[2], Germany[1], Australia[2], do. So the contest is
saying that a country like China with so may Asian cannot win yet a
smaller Asian country like Japan can. I have pretended to be Korean,
Japanese, Vietnamese, etc, but I am really Chinese so how do you tell
what I am by looking at me unless I told it to you. So the contest is
saying a country like Great Britain with so many white people cannot win
in a contest yet Australia can? So the point is what is the judge
looking for really? Can I really tell in terms of appearance someone
from Great Britain or Australia since it is a beauty contest? What if I
put two attractive females one from Great Britain and one from Australia
and never told you what countries they are from, can you tell with
certainty? What if I add another attractive female from Ukraine, can you
tell the three apart with certainty? In a contest of "looks", when you
cannot tell what country each is from, then "looks" is not the outcome
but the contest is about "looks" so it raises questions. Finally, the
most winner in the contest as I currently write this is the USA[7]
because the Miss Universe pageant is operated by someone in the USA. The
Miss Universe pageant is dominated by USA[7], Venezuela[6], Puerto
Rico[5], Sweden[3] with multiple wins as of year 2011, so why are they
better than other countries? The Miss Universe pageant has an external
factor in the decision process that is not consistent with logic.

      For instance, according to logical perception, people of similar
kind should see things in a similar fashion. Logical perception dictates
that one should gear towards those closest to oneself in terms of
attraction. Human for example are too distant from animal so human as a
race would be attracted to itself and not to animal. To move this logic
further, a race would be attracted to that which is closest to itself
instead of another race. But the human race has slight variation that
the difference may not be too great that other factors may come into
consideration. Take for instance from a hypothetical human male
heterosexual perspective, suppose a male of race X in surrounded by his
own race X of females but they may lack the appropriate size breast,
ass, etc, which the male race X find to be attractive features. So the
male race X sees another race Y which has females that fit his
requirement so he would approach the race Y because the variation isn't
too great from his race X. There is also the converse where the male
race X may be surrounded by females of race X who has too much size such
as fatness which may cause him to turn to race Y females. This is still
following the path of logical perception if such a behavior is observed.
Of course we like to say we should judge what is on the inside of the
person and not her outward appearance but why can't an attractive person
also have an attractive "inside" as well. It is rather unjust to assume
an attractive person has an ugly "inside". It is a form of manipulation
to take the advantage from the attractive person by creating a
perception the person has something wrong with her creating a
disadvantage. This is similar to taking the advantage away from a
healthy individual and making the person mentally ill creating a
disadvantage. Since we are logical beings, it is natural to term it
logical perception rather than illogical perception. There is a danger
to this racial mixing as the pure Hawaiians can attest to because the
pure Hawaiians
<http://gohawaii.about.com/cs/culture/a/hawaiian_people.htm> population
is said to be only 8000 in the United States as the rest is mixed out of
existence. It is something to think about as a group can be mixed out of
existence in a theoretical point of view. Is that cruel or is that a
good thing? What is your morality? Suppose an evil plot exists to cause
disease and mix the rest of the Hawaiians out of existence so territory
can be gained. Suppose the pure Hawaiians cease to exists how long would
the culture continues since the half-breed Hawaiians people will just
absorb another culture overtime.

     As an example, of all the different races from White, Spanish,
Black, Asian an so forth, each of their own group should see in similar
fashion. Take the Asian group such as Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese,
Cambodian, Korean, etc, should see in similar fashion and they would see
the black group as the ugliest of all in the ranking of the choices of
races. Take logical perception to the human race as a whole to describe
an animal such as a horse, the logical perception should be the same
from the human race since we are not of the horse specie in describing
the horse. Brainwashing may alter the decision process but that is a
different issue connected to the mental illness scam and many in the
psych industry are caught with sexual crimes and people can be
brainwashed for sexual purpose. So which race do you find the ugliest
because somebody got to be at the bottom? Suppose you have two identical
people except for a trait such as hair. One is the nappy hair type and
the other is the straight hair type, which do you prefer? This is how a
decision is arrive what is attractive in a logical manner. I am not of
the nappy hair type so I would prefer the straight hair type, what about
you? Do people with nappy hair who use chemical or other method to make
their hair straight saying they hate nappy hair? How many beauty
pageants have nappy hair as winners and why is that the case? Is society
as a whole saying nappy hair is ugly because even those with nappy hair
are hiding it with relaxer, braiding, etc? How should a non-nappy hair
person interpret the behavior? Also what race would you find the
dumbest? I find the black group the dumbest. But when we go to the
specific in a particular country as the United States, the answer is
different. Hispanic and Latino Americans and Black Americans are close
in population size according to 2008 census with Hispanic and Latino
Americans having a slight lead and Black Americans are competitive to
the Hispanic and Latino Americans and some may say Black Americans have
a slight lead. According to logic, Hispanic should come out in the lead
having a larger or equal group because they live in the same country,
same education, same law and they are closer in color to white following
the spectrum theory because people tend to favor those closer to their
spectrum and they are closer to white culture and although the Spanish
language is different than English, there are similarity between the two
languages. Hispanic may cling to their language more while other
foreigners have to learn the English language which can be against white
who wants the language to be English as this is America but that may not
be such a big issue rather an observation. Given more similarities to
white people Hispanic should have a better outcome than black people in
the USA. Would the Hispanic group accept being called dumber than the
black group in the USA? There maybe occupations where being "attractive"
can be beneficial and the spectrum theory favors Hispanic group over the
Black group in the USA. In a logical world, things operate according to
logic but one must find the correct logic to explain the result that is
contrary to logic. Black Americans include people with a mixture of
another race and black like Barack Obama so once this mixing occur, it
is put in the Black Americans category as Barack Obama is known as the
"first black president". America having a first black president but not
a pure black president like pure Hawaiians is expected. Those blacks who
pander to the public in the USA are mix blacks not pure blacks such as
talk show hosts where they want a wide audience. Hey this is reality and
some people feel uncomfortable talking about it but why? What is America
saying about pure black in comparison to mix black? The largest of the
Hispanic group in the United States is Mexican out numbering all other
Hispanic group combined at over 60% according to the 2010 census. One
has to take population size of the group into account because the
majority population group obviously favors itself and white people are
majority in the United States. If you don't think the majority favors
itself why not favor me as I am the minority group in the United States.
Obviously, I am not favored but neither am I the majority group.
For instance in this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Marion-Barry-disparaging-Asian...>,
"We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up
businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go." Some nicknamed Barry
"Mayor-for-Life" in this predominately black Washington, D.C area
because he is that popular. It wouldn't make sense to say it to white
people because they are the majority in the USA and can create a
backlash. So intelligence is the performance outcome of the whole group
in relation to other groups. There are many ways to compare the
performance of a group by comparing the countries and we can use GDP,
military, poverty
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-populat...>,
etc, and create a total score. The United States in terms of poverty of
its people don't stack as well as most think so I wonder if you want to
police the world how about taking care of your own citizens first. How
about talking care of people like me. Shouldn't we advanced enough in
our time that we can answer such questions without using racism to cover
up the answers? We study plants, animals, air, water, etc, why not
people? Don't you want to understand people? The intelligence level of
animals is studied but how useful is that to me? Why not people? I
wouldn't trust anyone who doesn't want to answer the questions. There
are people in the world that want to know the truth and is that racist?
Is seeking the truth racist? Should society be operated by lies? Knowing
what is true can help you defend against being manipulated so the more
information available the better you will be for having it.

    Let us take a look into the United States. There is a population of
black people of light skin and dark skin black people but the
representation of the black group is being represented in a majority by
light skin black not dark skin black people. Light skin black people are
seen as better "looking" compared to dark skin black people as being
represented in television and light skin black people are seen as
brighter compared to dark skin black people. This is the representation
so how is a person suppose to ignore such a representation by the black
group. According to the the logic of how light skin black came to
existence, it would mean that it was a product of a mixture of another
race who is not black that cause the light skin black to come to
existence. The logic points that this other race gave rise to this light
skin black that is somehow "better" than the original black group. The
question is why would the black group accept this from its own
perspective being that they are the dark skin type now being replaced by
a "better" black which is light skin. The mystery continues to another
question of why would another race have sex with the dark skin black
since the light skin black are seen as "better" black because of the
mixture of another race. But when we put brainwashing in the equation,
it makes sense. The feeling of "sex", erection, can be a created
process. Imagine yourself being attracted to a female who has breast,
ass, of certain size that of a "womenly body" then for no  particular
reason a female who is built closer to a "male body type" which is
breast size closer to a male (the non-fat male because there are some
fat men with "big" breasts) is paraded before you and you feel a sense
of "erection" which is totally illogical. There is also the example
where there are too much of a female body type such as having a big ass
with breast the size closer to a male which is not proportionate and
there are men who don't fall for such a type and when you get a feeling
of "sex" seeing such a person then you are being brainwashed because
that is not what you find attractive and I live in a neighborhood where
there are Puerto Rican females and some of them fit that description.
The explanation is you are being manipulated into thinking and feeling
this "sex". Since this can be done to men it obviously can be done to
women as well.

     People are manipulated constantly without being aware of it. Think
for instance about "dream" where you are asleep and somehow you can
recall this "dream" but how can a person asleep remember this dream and
where does this "dream" come from? As logical being, do you ever think
where dream come from? Perhaps it is a transmission while you are not
fully asleep otherwise why would you remember this "dream". The belief
that we can have a picture in our "mind" is it real? If we can imagine
an image in our mind why not in every places since it is still our mind.
What if you build a place where when you try to imaging an image in your
mind and it doesn't show up or modify an existing place? If you can't
build a place you can try to imagine an image in your mind in as many
places as possible and see if the image shows up in your mind. People
should not have the image in their mind when they imagine show up which
is the prefer result. For those with important information that you
don't others to know, you should realize that you can be spied upon in
the environment where the image shows up in your mind when you imagine
the image. What if you build a place where you would not have this
"dream" when you sleep show up anymore or modify your existing place? So
the question is why not? "Dream", "nightmare" do not exist. The logic is
if such a dream or image in your mind is real, then by modifying an
existing place or building a new place, one should not stop the dream
from appearing or image from appearing in your "mind". The fact that a
"place" can stop dream or image in your mind is proof that it is not
real because your "mind" was not tampered with in anyway in the process.
Think of this mental disorder called PTSD that people in the military
have. As logical being, why would you want to recall events which you
find "stressful"? or have "nightmare" about it? Although I have read
where some would claim to have PTSD when they don't because the mental
health field is a scam and people can fake the disorder for various
reasons but those that do have it should realize PTSD is created much
like other mental illness. When the mental illness scam ends so will
PTSD and all other so called "mental illness". A place can be built or
modify an existing one where you will not have dream whether it be
horrible or not because the transmission is the same. Dream is a lie so
is nightmare, it is nothing more than transmission which means your mind
is not your own. You can be manipulated. Your environment is compromised
because transmission is possible which means you can be spied upon such
as those with PTSD. In our infant technological age, people use
encryption to protect their information but most don''t consider their
environment as a security risk so keep that in mind. Some people would
seek therapy because of the bad dream which is another part of the
mental "health" group of services besides medication. In therapy
sometimes the therapist becomes the-rapist as patients can be taken
advantage of and some of the-rapists are caught and put in prison.

     Creating mental illness involves manipulating the mind so it means
symptoms. Symptoms are just reaction to what is being done to the
person. The symptoms for mental illness is a negative type of symptoms
but to integrate black people with white people, positive symptoms are
used. The mind can be made to feel "attraction" to another person or
feel "love" or other emotions. Is it logical to feel "attraction" to
someone you find "ugly?" Then it is a manipulation of your mind. People
who are victims are not aware of the manipulation since they think with
phrase like "love is blind". But people can see so they are not blind so
why should love be blind? Is it logical to love what you don't find
attractive? People don't analyze their emotions because that too should
have logic to them. So those of you black people who were diagnosed as
schizophrenics don't benefit much because you are seen as "crazy" and
not many people want to integrate with "crazy". Until the mental illness
scam ends, you will be seen as "crazy" and always will be "crazy"
because the psych industry does not offer a cure. Since more blacks are
schizophrenics than other racial group, it is racist in that regard to
those blacks affected but those black people who are not schizophrenic
benefited from the mental illness scam in a different way at the expense
of the white people brainwashed to have sex with black people to create
an acceptance of dark skin black people in a white country that did not
like them. When a person is targeted because of race then it is racism.
There are cases where black people in the USA are racist towards a
lesser minority group like Asian which would be racism since racism
against the majority group which is white would create a backlash. The
point to understand is that the majority group gets the advantage and
black people can be racist as well.

     Black people gain knowledge being in a white country due to white
people. Black people as a group in their own country still perform
poorly in comparison to those in the United States. This is how it is
today for those in Africa where commercial is being shown about starving
black children whose country is still backward in comparison to the US
and many other major countries. According to The Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development "Africa remains a desperately poor
continent. Poverty and disease are widespread, and sub-Saharan Africa
has the world’s highest illiteracy. Conflict is also a threat." This is
with the help of US economic aid to Africa. There are also economic aid
given to other countries as well. Giving the current US economic issues,
why isn't the citizens of the USA given priority instead of sending
economic aid to foreign countries. So there is a benefit to black people
living in the United States as oppose to living in Africa. So if I was a
black person, I would benefit most living in the US than in Africa. I
read in an article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/uk-usa-economy-poverty.html>
that "A record 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010,
pushing the U.S. poverty rate to its highest level since 1993, according
to a government report." I suppose many US citizens are in debt as well
and so is the country. Although our current mix black president Obama is
doing a poor job of helping the USA, it is still better than Africa to
live in so all you people "keep hope alive" as we will survive through
the Obama years. The USA currently has a poor performing president Obama
with a lot of unemployed people like myself but there is always the
chance of someone better that will be in charge so we hang on waiting
for someone who knows what he is doing. If I wasn't living in the USA, I
would live in China. As a group, the Chinese do better than the Blacks
in Africa by comparing the two countries - China is better than Africa.
The USA would benefit more having more Chinese but why would they want
to live in the USA if their country is doing fine? If I was living in
China today, I probably wouldn't want to come to the USA. I am trying to
help end the mental illness scam and the USA government doesn't seem to
care. That says a lot about those in power in the USA even their own
citizens are being ignored. So is it wrong to do comparison? No, it is
how we come to know who is better than someone else. It is how the world
operates.

     I would guess that the psych industry resorted to promoting mixing
the race in the period of the civil rights in the USA when the dark skin
blacks were approaching equality in rights so there needs to be a way to
control them. Mixing the dark skin black produced a light skin child
that looked less threatening and closer to being white so it is more
"attractive" than the dark skin child. The general attitude is that
light skin black is more attractive compared to dark skin black. This
only supports the rationalization that manipulation is at work when a
dark skin black is having sex with a white person because light skin
black is considered better looking since it is closer to being white so
why would a white person sex with someone who is dark skin black?
Considering that the USA has such a large white majority population and
white people are intellectually superior because they are in control to
black people and black people look too different in skin color to white
people, why would the two race mix? So when I say intellectually
superior I mean the outcome not genetic. Science has not demonstrated
that the genetic can determine superior intelligence. One can never be
sure about "false" science relating to genetic because some research
suggest mental illness like schizophrenia could be genetic when mental
illness itself is a scam. So I don't have enough confidence in genetic
research. Excuses such as love, money, attractiveness, etc, so why
couldn't the white majority group fulfill this for its own white people?
The explanation leads to brainwashing which is taking advantage of a
person. It is an observation of the USA that all the presidents of the
USA practice discrimination in choosing a sexual partner so it brings
the question of why would a country with a majority of white people mix
with the dark skin blacks who are not liked as history of the USA
showed. The USA presidents select their wives following the spectrum
observation of skin color close to them. None of the USA presidents had
a pure black wife including Obama who has a mix black woman as a wife.
Consider that people practice discrimination in choosing a sexual
partner. Even the presidents of the USA cheat on their spouse but the
people being caught follow the spectrum of color. Take the USA president
Bill Clinton, who was caught in the "zippergate scandal"
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Lewinsky-scandal.html> where
various females claimed to have "sexual" relation with him. The most
famous among them happens to be an intern named Monica Lewinsky and all
these females that had sexual relation with Bill Clinton were close in
skin color to him. Monica Lewinsky went on with her life after the
"incident" to get a master degree in social psychology from the London
School of Economics. This behavior is not so abnormal as people do go
back to school to continue their learning. The "incident' was memorable
to people concerning Monica Lewinsky was the odd behavior where "Clinton
penetrating Lewinsky vaginally with a Cigar which he continued to smoke
afterwards
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Lewinsky-scandal-2.html>." I
suppose cigar smokers would find the behavior abnormal as people would
normally just smoke it. Taking another viewpoint, perhaps the act of
smoking it afterward was an act of "love" or  it may have been an
experiment to see if the cigar is enhanced in smoking quality as Bill
Clinton is quoted to say it "It tastes good
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Bill-Clinton-Meets-The-Shrinks...>."
People tend to remember abnormal behavior more. I wouldn't be surprised
if the idea of penetrating the vagina with a cigar was used is some
porno movie and smoking it afterward would be used to make it more
memorable to the viewers. One can say the act itself between Lewinsky
and Clinton was to make it memorable to both parties, a special event. I
wouldn't consider the act of smoking it afterward unhealthy or the act
of penetrating the vagina with a cigar dangerous. The behavior isn't
dangerous but is it appropriate? One can watch porn movies but does one
follow what one watches? One can watch a movie about killers but does
one follow what one watches? Of course being that Bill Clinton was
married and was the boss of Lewinsky would make the behavior
inappropriate but the question is, is the "sexual" act appropriate? I
find Bill Clinton's "sexual" act beyond perversion. A man who is
supposed to represent the USA behaving like a porn star. One can say
Bill Clinton brought disrespect to the presidency of USA. The American
public tends to have short-term memory but if one remembers that Bill
Clinton was president of the USA and was involved in the cigar in the
vagina incident, would one feel comfortable shaking hand with such a
person? I would feel uncomfortable in such a situation but how about
those of you who are the religious type, what does your religion say
about the issue? The reason I feel uncomfortable is that Bill Clinton
was the president and married to another woman which made his behavior
unacceptable and showed bad judgment. So for the religious type, is
there some religious "law" that speak of cheating in a marriage and
prohibited sexual acts and how do you treat the "law" breaker? Baptist
religion would interpret Bill Clinton's behavior as inappropriate "There
is no question that Bill knew his behavior with Monica was inappropriate
according to his Bible-based Baptist religion
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Bill-Clinton-Meets-The-Shrinks...>."
Hillary Clinton once said “I think we need to call people out when they
go over the line” which I am doing concerning the cigar in the vagina
and smoking it afterward event. It didn't help much to know that in
Clinton's period of "moral" issues involving Lewinsky, his spiritual
advisor was Reverend Jesse Jackson who was fathering a love child with
Rainbow Push Coalition aid Karin Stanford. The quote from the article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/say-it-aint-so-jesse-jackson-a...>
said "she understood Jackson’s marriage was one of political
convenience" which must have been embarrassing for Jackson's wife to
read as her friends and family would be reading the same. Perhaps one
can view the spiritual advisor moment with Bill Clinton and Jesse
Jackson as do as I say not as I do or I know what your going through
because I got female issues too. Some blacks have said he was the "first
black president" but strangely enough Bill Clinton's endorsement of his
wife cause her to lose the election to Barack Obama. Perhaps, Bill
Clinton "wasn't the first black president" at all as the trust of black
voters shifted to Barack Obama and not to him. Can one say the cigar in
the vagina incident and smoking it afterward was the reason for the
shift of trust as Bill Clinton still campaign for Barack Obama and Obama
doesn't seem to mind the disrespect that was brought to the presidency
but the public has a short-term memory. Sometimes when a relationship
doesn't go as one likes, some couple speak their mind, so Bill Clinton
could have said "Hillary, sometimes I like to smoke my cigar coming out
of a woman's vagina because it tastes good and if your not into such an
act perhaps we should depart." I am not surprised by Barack Obama's
behavior as I don't find Barack Obama to be a religious person, he
perhaps feel Bill Clinton could get him some votes and campaign
contribution. Barack Obama's vice president is quoted to say "Biden also
signaled he was open to legalizing gay marriage" which the Christian
religion is against. The article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/biden-says-chens-future-united...>
also goes on to say "I think his future is in America, Biden said. He
has an opportunity to go to NYU ... and we're prepared to give (him) a
visa right away. He's going to be able to take his family" which is nice
of you to help someone out but what out the citizens of the United
States, what are you doing for them? It sounds more like a political
show rather than wanting to help people as there are those in the United
States in needs without having to go oversea looking for those in
"needs". In this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/analysis-response-to-obama-gay...>
"President Barack Obama's announcement that he supports gay marriage
sent ripples through the political world " is another example why I
don't think Obama is a religious person. Even Obama's pastor disagree
with him on gay marriage and so is the church; is Obama the greatest
interpreter of the Bible that ever lived because he somehow thinks
differently than the Church itself?  I understand that people who are in
politic would try to get as many votes as they can but be honest about
who you are and don't pretend to belong to a religion just to get votes.
I would conclude that those who support Barack Obama are also not
religious people because Obama is not religious. Although I am not
religious, I think Obama is a bad president not for religious reason but
performance reason which is just my opinion and many other people's
opinion. For those who are religious, Obama being not religious may be a
factor to them; for those who are not religious, it would be how Obama
performed as president of USA. For gay people, the single issue of gay
marriage alone may be all that is necessary to get their vote. Perhaps,
because Obama is black he may continue to get the black votes which is
said to be 95 percent nationally of black voters and "No one doubts
Obama will carry the black vote this year" according to this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/many-blacks-shrug-off-obamas-v...>.
Being that 95% voted for Obama are black people, then perhaps being
black is a factor to black voters. In the normal course of election,
most people vote within their party whether it be republican or
democrat. This goes back to the point about Bill Clinton who some said
was the first black president but didn't carry much weight to black
people when comparing to Obama who is a mix black
man. Same-sex intercourse is considered a violation of Islamic law so
gay marriage would be as well. According to the Dalai Lama, all forms of
sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists so
Buddhists would be against gay marriage as well. So Obama offended the
religious group while doing a poor job as president.
Gay marriage may be considered a major issue for Islam and Christianity
but which has more dedicated followers? I would guess that Islam has
more dedicated followers in this issue and the followers of Christianity
seem not of one voice. But people should put things in perspective that
gay people represents a small population of society but the gay issue
can be used to weaken a religion causing it to change so it is no longer
the same religion. It may have been a strategic move by Obama to
"payback" the support he has received to get elected by gay people.
Since Obama isn't a religious person and his political behavior is the
reason, it would be pointless to play the role since his opponent is
religious by his political behavior so Obama's opponent would get the
religious "crowd" so what else is left but the gay issue. Taking an
outside perspective, Obama has divided the country further by his
political move which can end up hurting gay people even more. Gay people
enjoy more freedom in the USA than other countries such as those that
follow the Islamic law. But I am no analyst but simply trying to
rationalize the issues so I cannot say with certainty. All I can say
with certainty is I am 100% confident that mental illness is a scam.
 From this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/christian-leaders-not-surprise...>,
Ralph Reed said "Four years ago ... Barack Obama promised if elected not
to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000, pledged to cut the
deficit in half by the end of his first term -- and made clear his
support for traditional marriage. All those promises are now broken." So
what I conclude from the statement is that Obama does not keep his
promises so who knows what Obama is really thinking. One can also say
America is not ready for a female president and Barack Obama would agree
because he caused Hillary Clinton to lose or Barack Obama may feel he is
more qualified than Hillary Clinton as he ran against her. One wonders
why Hillary Clinton stayed with Bill Clinton despite the embarrassment
she must have endured when the various women in Bill Clinton's life came
to public attention. One can say perhaps it is love but why would you
love someone who is into "hurting" you? Consider that there is no
shortage of white people in the USA so that would eliminate the needs to
mix. Consider that there is no physical advantage to mix with black
people as the penis research demonstrates just to eliminate the
possibility because penis commentaries are in movies, tv, etc. Consider
that there is no mental advantage either because white people are in
charge so white people have the advantage. Consider that there is no
shortage of white people in the USA so that would eliminate the needs to
mix. Consider that there is no physical advantage to mix with black
people as the penis research demonstrates just to eliminate the
possibility because penis commentaries are in movies, tv, etc. Consider
that there is no mental advantage either because white people are in
charge so white people have the advantage. Consider that black people
are not liked at each point in history from slavery to segregation. This
is the question for the readers to ponder how did white people and black
people came to mix given the few examples above. It may seem odd when I
stated that "black people wanted to have sex with white people" in the
beginning of the paragraph but would it make sense to you that "white
people wanted to have sex with black people" given the advantages of
being white in a white country when black people were brought for
slavery and white people wanted to be segregated from black people and
the other reasons that I have listed. But we know the two race mix so
the question is how did it began. This is similar to to saying why would
healthy people become insane -the reason is brainwashing.

     Many women whether light skin blacks or dark skin blacks make their
hair look straighten similar to white people by using product called
relaxer. In the natural state, black hair is hard so it needs to be
"relaxed" so the hair will feel softer using chemicals. Is changing
one's identity an acknowledgment of someone being seen better looking?
It would be logical because it takes time to straighten one's hair and
it not what you are "born" with as a black person. Are black women
saying something about their hair when they want to look like all the
other women whose hair isn't like black people? So, why would black
women do this to their hair when black men don't seem to do it?
Generally speaking, the black men I seen have a short haircut but it is
not straighten. When someone alters herself as a group to look like
another group, it reminds me of the polygenist, Christoph Meiners who
splits mankind into two divisions, the "beautiful White race" and the
"ugly Black race". So when black people alter themselves to the "white
race" they are admitting that they are the "ugly race". Meiners is
logical seeing himself as the "beautiful white race" because he is white
so you black people should see yourself as the "beautiful black race"
because you are black. Black people can counter Meiners by not altering
themselves at all from their traits. Take another approach, suppose you
are a black person and said "black is the most beautiful race", I would
accept that you are logical in your perception because you are black.
Suppose you are a white person and said "white is the most beautiful
race", I would accept that you are logical in your perception because
you are white. When a person of one race find another race to be "more
beautiful" than his own, then you have to wonder what is wrong with the
person because the logical perception is one's own race.

    Besides logical perception of one's own race as "more beautiful",
there is also an expectation of being being loyal to the country that
one resides in. This is logical because why would you be loyal to
another country unless your a spy for it. It is because the country you
resides in is considered as "your own". For a hypothetical example, the
mix black president Obama has African heritage but the logical
expectation is that he is loyal to the United States and the USA comes
first before Africa such as the problems of its citizens. The concepts
of logical perception and logical loyalty are simple and those are the
expected behaviors. The USA has a diverse population of races but the
black race came to the USA by way of slavery from a historical
perspective. Other races came to the USA seeking a better life not
because they were slaves. This is an important point to remember. The
USA had a period called the Civil war but before it began, Abraham
Lincoln was elected President to run the country and promised to not
expand slavery beyond the states where it existed. 11 Southern slave
states declared succession and formed their own "government" called the
Confederate States of America. The Civil war lasted between 1861-1865.
It was a bloody battle and many people died. One cannot say that Lincoln
was against slavery because he promised to preserve slavery in the
states that had slavery. Lincoln's goal was to keep the USA together due
to the formation of the Confederate States of America. In essence,
without the South succession, America would have still remained a
country with slaves. Lincoln issued his emancipation proclamation on
January 1, 1863 "as a necessary war measure" so the slaves could also be
used to join the Union army and fight against the South. Lincoln's
intention was to destroy the South's ambition for success in succession,
not because Lincoln favored freeing slaves - it was a war strategy.
Lincoln is silently complimenting the South in its ability to fight
against the North because the North needed the slave advantage to help
it defeat the South. Lincoln could have waited until the Civil War was
over to announce his emancipation proclamation if such an advantage was
not necessary. Even after the "end" of slavery when the Civil War ended,
black people didn't get the same rights as white, only until in the
1960's. America wanted black people for slavery and the South who bought
the slaves had a contract and they paid for the rights to own the
slaves. Those in the South didn't do anything illegal because it was
legal to own slaves. A country can limit people by using immigration
policy to dictate who is allowed inside. The problem with slaves was it
isn't immigration how black people ended in America. Those slaves was
bought with the intention that they would remained slaves and when they
were no longer slaves, problems arise.

     During the period of slavery in America, white people in the
country didn't have issues with black people living in the USA and they
had a working relationship from 1619-1860's. Can one seriously say that
the population of black people in America would be in this great number
with an immigration policy? When America decided not to have slaves
after the Civil War, it should have sent the slaves back to their own
countries which would have been a humane action and the North should pay
for it as the South lost the slaves which it had bought legally. An
immigration policy means that you want someone to live in your country
so I would say that the black population would be drastically less in
USA if slavery didn't exists. From the past to the present white people
somehow manage to get the advantage over black people as a group (white
countries vs black countries). But an interesting observation arises,
when white people fought one another like the Civil War, black people
benefited. The outcome of white people fighting one another was black
people were no longer "slaves". So when the strong fought one another,
the weaker group benefited. In essence, white people as a group got
better technology, education, military, etc. But in terms of who has
more schizophrenics, black people wins in this category. When one race
is better than another race, then it is perpetuating the racial
superiority theory. Assume racial superiority theory, intellectually
superior theory means outcome based superiority. Assuming that
"cheating" which is difficult when your the major racial group in your
own country is taken out of the equation, can one disagree with outcome
based superiority? White people need to "bring it down" a bit because
they can be seen as perpetuating such a theory because there are people
in this world who think in this manner. The Asian countries also seem to
perform better than the black countries so it would be fair to say Asian
people need to "bring it down" a bit also because it would be
perpetuating such a theory also. I suppose an individual can be "game"
but a whole group of people is a different story. I can be "game" to
fail but a whole group of people is a different story because I have
"enemies". But because people are afraid of racial superiority, race
that is superior should "bring it down" a bit so that the world can be
fair for all. Of course that doesn't make sense and the race that is
superior has the right to perform to the best of its ability because it
isn't doing anything "illegal".

     So the theory is, the psych industry gave black people the ability
to integrate with white people in the USA using unethical method that
gave rise to a mix black president called Obama. It is a theory based on
the fact that mental illness is a scam and when a "pale" face white
person have sex with a dark skin black, it is contrary to how people
would normally behave as the physical differences are great. Consider
"pale" face white people at one end of the spectrum(A) and dark skin
black at the other end of the spectrum(Z) and the rest of the human race
is somewhere in between the spectrum A and spectrum Z. We are logical
beings and when logic isn't followed, then manipulation is at work. For
instance in this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Academic-slammed-over-black-wo...>
where the author is ridiculed in his "research supporting the idea that
black women are less attractive than other races" seems to follow the
spectrum theory. For instance, "a survey of men and women across the
races who were asked to rate each other’s attractiveness. Black women
scored the least, even though they marked themselves highly." You see,
Black women rated themselves the highest because they are of the color
black which is at the end of the spectrum(Z) where the others who are at
the other spectrum(A) rated them the lowest because they are closer to
spectrum(A) not spectrum(Z). People tend to favor the spectrum closest
to them given the same quality. For instance, suppose a male was of
spectrum(A) has two choices. Two females one of spectrum(A) and one of
spectrum(B) but spectrum(B) female has a "body" that is to his liking
which can change his normal preference of spectrum(A) because
spectrum(B) is not that distant from spectrum(A). Of course one should
not assume just because someone is attractive that means she is dumb
which is an unfair assumption as there are examples where intelligence
and appearance do not show correlation. There is the saying that beauty
is on the inside but there are examples where the ugly looking ones are
also ugly on the inside. Wouldn't it be a safer bet to get someone
attractive as one cannot know what is inside of a person until one gets
to know her? This may explain why attractive people are given more
attention because at least if you are stuck with an ugly on the inside
at least the outside isn't bad to look at. In essence, looking for the
attractive "mate" is a safer way of going through life especially those
who are risk adverse provided the option is available as other maybe
competing for the same. In life when one takes a risk the reward has to
be acceptable for the risk to be taken so choosing an attractive "mate"
is less risky while the contrary would be more risky and the reward may
not even worth the risk. The author is ridiculed failing to take into
account the spectrum theory which would explain the result. Another
person suggested the researcher "did not explore the idea that women
were measured against the dominant European ideals of beauty" which is
acceptable criticism because that also follows the spectrum theory as
Europeans are not black people so Europeans would prefer the spectrum
closest to them which would be white as they are white or spectrum(A).
Can one call the students "racist" as that is how they answered the
question being asked? Of course not, the students are being honest be
they white or black. When using the spectrum theory, the result makes
sense rather making it a racial issue. Without makeup or sun tan, "pale"
face isn't so attractive  especially with freckles on it. Makeup does
benefit white people more but it isn't natural. If the mental health
industry is destroyed and the mental illness scam ends, so will this
racial "mixing". This racial "mixing" can be interpreted as violating
the natural selection process that would have occurred in order to
create this "other" race that would not have been created. From history,
the human population had specific races and they proliferated on their
own but when the psych industry expand so did the racial mixing as well.
If racial mixing was a "natural" decision then the human population
would have been a "mix" sort but that was not the case so it is NOT a
"natural" decision, rather a manipulated decision. I have a problem when
people are being manipulated or brainwashed to do things that they would
not otherwise do. Racial mixing such as white and pure black would not
last if the couple lived in an all white country because the
"interpretation" would favor white in an all white country. Racial
mixing such as Asian and pure black would not last if the couple lived
in an all Asian country because the "interpretation" would favor Asian
in an all Asian country. I may not believe in the "God" that other
people believe in but to take away people's "free will" and decide their
fate for them in a manipulative way is cruel and pretending to be "God".
The existence of human be it a belief created by "God" or a natural
evolution from a lower specie, cannot justify altering the course with
brainwashing of people by taking away their free will. The psych
industry is dangerous to either belief on how human came to existence.
In this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/free-illusion-scientists-philo...>,
there are people in the world who would argue that "free will is merely
an illusion" so all our actions are predetermined even criminals
shouldn't be blamed for what they do. The argument is that "human
behavior is governed by the brain" which I agree with because we human
do not use our body to make decision but I would agree the scientists
are misguided about the question of free will. I would accept that free
will is "making a reasoned decision among various alternatives" as
stated by the philosopher. The free will debate ignores that people can
be manipulated or brainwashed which takes away the decision process from
the victims so their decision are no longer their own so is their free
will. Destruction of the mental health industry can also bring physical
benefit to people because the mental illness scam profits from pain and
misery. People who have health issues(physical) may find they no longer
have such issues when the mental illness scam ends. You may also be able
to enjoy the "unhealthy" food that the "medical" industry advises
against because the cause of the "unhealthy" isn't the food itself
assuming the food isn't contaminated. Sure there are consequences like
heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, etc, but when "foul" play
is not involved, the "unhealthy" food are not the cause. The mental
illness scam is a medical scam and let us not be childish why it is able
to continue for so long without serious challenge to the medical model
of human health. The medical scam is powerful and well funded.

     Black people may one day return the favor of "slavery" to the white
people because people do remember history as it is available with a
touch of a keystroke but I suppose that is not likely with a white
majority currently in the USA but the human race still has plenty of
time before its demise so the chance is still there for the black race
to rise be it in the USA or elsewhere. For example
in this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/why-iran-wants-beef-zimbabwe-m...>,
"Zimbabwe, for its part, is under heavy sanctions for its forced
land-reform policies since 2000, in which large white-owned commercial
farms were taken by force and without compensation." This is a step in
the direction for black to rise in power by taking away from white
otherwise, how will the black race rise? As has been written before,
such act of negativity from black people towards white people in the USA
would not be tolerated because of a white majority in the USA but in
Zimbabwe, white is the minority so it is permitted. There is a similar
voice in this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/South-Africa-youth-leader-says...>
"Mr Malema said that the government's attempts to return land to black
South Africans through negotiations with white farmers had failed, and
called for Zimbabwe-style land seizures." It is the idea that counts and
the idea is out there and some black people are exercising it. One can
never be sure of who will be in power and for how long. If we went back
in time to Zimbabwe, do you think the black people would have thought
that the day would come that they can "kick" white people off the land?
This is the point to remember that what we think is impossible can be
made possible. History has a way of repeating itself when given the
opportunity. Intelligence superiority is what the world is approaching
and is it the genetic or is it outcome based? I don't have confidence in
genetic "research" as being honest so it is outcome based. One can argue
how come other "Asian" such as myself have not discovered mental illness
is a scam where I have even offered a proof to it if genetic was a
determination of intelligence. One can argue how come other "racial"
group have not discovered mental illness is a scam where I have even
offered a proof to it given so many victims if genetic was a
determination of intelligence. The outcome is I have discovered and
provided the proof that mental illness is a scam and one cannot argue
against it. Genetic as a determination of intelligence does not prove in
outcome of children as there are examples showing variation in
comparison to their parents. One can say this kid is a genius but not to
the parent. One can say this kid is a genius but not his brother or
sister. One can say this man is a genius but not to his kid. There are
such examples. Creating mental illness involves deceiving the victim and
intelligence is a factor in deception. The outcome is all those who felt
victims and continue to have been deceived and some have misguided
understanding of how the process works. Intelligence and honesty are
points of defense against deception and one has to be brighter than the
deceivers. Genetic is a factor when it comes to the production of a
child in terms of physical appearance which cannot be denied. Suppose
someone doesn't want a nappy head child, then one should consider a mate
who isn't of the nappy head variety. Hair color can also be a genetic
factor which cannot be denied. There are other factors that is genetic
as well. Can we predict the outcome of the future? Blacks in the USA can
transfer their knowledge to these other blacks such as in Zimbabwe as
nothing can stop them from doing so. Although the spectrum theory may
not favor black people in white majority country, it favors them in
black majority country. Although one can only judge by outcome, black
countries may be at a disadvantage due to being slaves from their past
so that would make the black group as a whole outcome worse. To catch up
with other white countries would not be an easy task since people in the
white countries would continue on with their development and your own
development is unable to match their. You may find it amusing but white
people did enslave black people and if black people had the same
opportunity, why would it be different? Suppose black people had the
opportunity and did enslave white people, are black people any worse
since white people did the same to them? White people as a group are
more intelligent than black people at the time of slavery and even to
this very year of 2012 and the smarter black people continue to kiss
white people's "ass" because they accept that white is intellectually
superior to them so why not call white intellectually inferior then if
one doesn't accept white as intellectually superior? Black people as a
group in the USA can test this "ass" kissing theory and turn against
white people in the USA and see how long you last. When people speak of
equality, they mean rights in the eyes of the law not intelligence
because intelligence varies. One can say white people as a group are
more prosperous than black people as a group so there is no "punishment"
from "above" for having slaves or enslaving people. The world is logical
that is the reason. If one doesn't accept the logical world explanation
then this "above" being ("God") who makes judgment on human from
earthquake, famine, flood, death, etc, does not want to punish the slave
masters so it would be taken as approval being the white group is more
prosperous than the black group-perhaps a sign from "above" of wanting
less black people in the world. I can only tell you what I find as truth
according to history. At the time of slavery in USA, it was a religious
country with people who ran the country of that religion which is
Christianity. One can say there is a separation of church and state but
the people who ran the country and the people who voted for them go to
the same church. So according to the bible to which these people follow,
it was acceptable to enslave black people. So how different is the bible
from the days of slavery to today? So in the eyes of "God" based on
Christianity, it is acceptable to enslave black people. But since white
people have not been enslaved by black people, in the eyes of "God"
according to Christianity, it remains a question whether it is
acceptable to enslave white people. But slavery was also practiced by
other group of race who practiced other religions and it was acceptable.
So according to these other religions, in the eyes of "God", it was
acceptable to enslave black people and the religions were believers in
afterlife so they didn't believe they would be punished for what they
were doing in the "afterlife" by having slaves. Since a person would not
be punished in an afterlife for slavery, can there be reward in the
afterlife for such an act? The afterlife religion is reward based then
why would there be the concept of an afterlife or "heaven and hell." How
different of an interpretation of the bible can one get since the same
bible is used and the religion of Christianity is based on Jesus Christ?
Considering how much efforts have been invested into the religion of
Jesus Christ, there should be one definitive view by Jesus Christ and
that would be the view by anyone who follows Jesus Christ. One cannot
say an individual such as Jesus Christ who died long ago, his opinions
or viewpoints would change since he is already dead.

     So the believers of Jesus Christ found it acceptable to enslave
black people and the same bible still exists, so the rational is still
the same. The USA at the time of slavery would have opposed slavery if
the religion of Jesus Christ opposed it at the time because the people
were of that religion but that was not the case. Also in the religion of
Jesus Christ, there is no female pope. Based on the Christianity, women
are not qualified to be pope or be the "head" of the religion? How many
religions based on the belief of an afterlife would allow a woman to be
in "charge" of it? What does that say about women and their role in
religion? Women today want equal rights to men and where do they come up
with such notion when religion treats them differently because religion
represents "God" and women are seen by "God" as unqualified to be in
"charge" of religion? The Catholic church considers itself the "one true
faith" which means all other "faiths" are false like Jewish, Islam,
Scientology, etc. Since the Catholic church exists then no other
religions are necessary because it is the "one true faith". The concept
of "one true faith" comes from using the Law of Non-Contradiction which
implies when two propositions contradict one another both cannot be true
which means that there cannot be any contradiction. I would accept that
the Law of Non-Contradiction is logical but the concept of an afterlife
which the Catholic church believes in contradicts the concept of no
afterlife which I have wrote extensively on; therefore, both cannot be
correct. Because the world which we live in is logical then the Law of
Non-Contradiction would support the belief of no afterlife so any
religion that is based on an afterlife is false by the Law of
Non-Contradiction.

     The Law of Non-Contradiction is interesting in that it is simple to
understand and yet effective to use in an argument and it sounds
authoritative. The Law of Non-Contradiction dictates that the followers
of any religion should have the same interpretation because different
interpretations cannot all be true. The Law of Non-Contradiction would
say that only "one true faith" should exists for the believers of an
afterlife yet there are so many, so the common man should ask, why
haven't the believers in an afterlife eliminated all the other "false"
faiths. The promoters of an afterlife are inefficient and confusing to
the followers of such a belief. Those in charge of the belief in an
afterlife are doing a poor job for their followers. Years and years yet
there is no "one true faith" for the believers of an afterlife because
so many exists so one has to wonder will there be such a "one true
faith" for the believers of an afterlife? Perhaps the believers of an
afterlife should compete their faith against one another and let the
best of the faiths be chosen. It is by logic that a competition should
exists as not to offend the real “one true faith” of the afterlife
believers because their time would have spent worshiping the wrong faith
and they would suffer in an afterlife. The logic of the afterlife
believers is cruel because if their believers worship the wrong faith,
then they would suffer in an afterlife. The cruelty continues to this
very days as so many different faiths of the afterlife believers exist
but only one can be correct by the Law of Non-Contradiction. If a
religion existed based on the belief of no afterlife, all followers from
men, women, homosexual, etc, would be given a fair chance to be in
"charge" of the religion because logic would choose the one most
qualified as it is based on a logical belief of "God". The belief of an
afterlife is illogical so it is based on an illogical belief of "God".
Suppose there were several no afterlife faiths as there are the
afterlife faiths, the promoters of the no afterlife faith would be seen
not as wicked because their followers would not suffer in an afterlife
because they don't believe in it. The believers of no afterlife would
divide people less because everyone is given a fair chance to be in
"charge" if such a religion existed.

     Psychiatry is no better. Samuel Adolphus Cartwright most well-known
for describing a condition called "drapetomania", or the desire of slave
to flee from servitude. Drapetomania is described as a mental disorder
akin to alienation. This is how the field of psychiatry develops, by
making up "things". Since slavery existed, a condition called
"drapetomania" was created to keep them from escaping which would be a
natural response. Therefore, when slaves escape, it was due to "mental
disorder" not because the slaves wanted to escape. To the credit of
modern day psychiatry, chemicals are used to "create" symptoms so that
more "mental disorder" would be created. Psychiatry has advanced in its
deception.

      Who is more evil as a group, black people or white people? Sure
white people enslaved black people but that is because black people was
incapable of enslaving white people. It is also capability that has to
be taken into consideration. Black people are as capable of evil just
like white people but their ability to do it to white people as a group
in not possible since white people seem to perform better than them as a
group. Black people is capable of being racist just like white people
but to be an effective racist, being in charge would help as you can
"pick" on the minority group. I live in NYC in the borough called The
Bronx and I have seen Mexican, Korean, being picked on in a racial way.
So black people are capable of being racist just as they say white
people are. Black people would do the same to white people that was done
to them but black people lack the capability as a group. During the
period of 1502 to 1719 enslavement of Africans also existed in the
Spanish Americas. Cuba and Puerto Rico continue with the slavery until
it was finally abolished in 1860's. During the period of 650 to 1900
enslavement of Africans were also practiced by Arab slave traders. It is
estimated that 10 to 18 million Africans were taken. So when I say that
people when given the opportunity would do similar things, I wasn't
wrong, look at slavery. Of course blacks would rather be the slave
master than the slave but blacks were not capable of being the master.
White, Spanish, Arab, etc, were superior that is the reason they were
able to be the slave master and to this day, the African group still are
not able to dominate these people in return, so they are still superior.
An inferior group cannot dominate a superior group by definition. It
should be common sense that black people would enslaved the people who
enslaved them with the same opportunity given to them. I don't accept
the argument, "Oh no its wrong" because you were a slave so that would
be expected. I don't accept the argument "Oh I'm better than them"
because you are inferior that is why you were a slave so you can't say
your "better".  White, Spanish, Arab, found a logic to own slaves and it
was legal to do so and black people would have done the same at that
period of time but they weren't capable. But the popular crowd doesn't
seem to be interested in slavery like they did in the past so the
attitude changes. Black people weren't part of the popular crowd so they
became the target and black people weren't able to fight back from being
made slaves. If I was a black person, I would recommend killing anyone
who was my slave master at that period so it would create a bad
investment in owning slave. I would recommend other fellow black to do
the same because it would require cooperation. Slavery at the time was a
good investment so the solution was to make it a bad investment if your
a slave. Black people from a historical perspective has a poor record in
war against another race such as white vs black. Since black people are
slaves to so many races then one can say they are "poor" at war with
other races as well.

     Countries with a superior military are able to dominate other
countries that are weaker than them. Countries that are superior are
able to muster support to "sanction" other weaker countries to show
their superiority. Is it wrong to be realistic about how the world
operate? Is someone better or worse taking advantage of his position in
life? For instance, suppose there are a few countries who possess
nuclear weapon such as United States, Russia, China, France, United
Kingdom and wanted to be the only countries with such a capability so
they would use their power to "sanction" other countries who also want
the same nuclear weapon. These nuclear weapon countries have an
"advantage" then why have nuclear weapon if it isn't an advantage since
it is costly? If Japan had nuclear weapon like the USA, do you think it
would have been nuked during the war? I doubt it because the response
would be to nuke back. In this respect, having nuclear weapon as a
deterrent from other people using nuclear weapon on you has credibility.
So other countries see these nuclear weapon countries and want to be in
the "club" such as India and Pakistan so they endure "sanction" or
whatever measures would be used to deter them from wanting nuclear
weapon. The fact is, the "sanction" would eventually disappear once they
become nuclear power countries. Are people that different from one
another in thinking since we are all logical? If your country can have
nuclear weapon, why can't my country if I can afford to have it? Not
having nuclear weapon is like not being in the popular crowd who has
"toys" that you want if your afraid of getting nuke like Japan. One can
use the argument of a nuclear "nightmare" where every countries will
have nuclear weapon but the fact is if you have nuclear weapon other
countries will want it as well. If you don't want nuclear weapon then no
country should have nuclear weapons but the truth is, people don't trust
one another and having weapons your "competitors" don't have is an
advantage. Of course pursuit of weaponary has other advantages such as
Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs despite being a
poorer country than South Korea. In this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Sub-humanN-Korea.html> North
Korea is said to have a "starving population" but South Korea doesn't?
So the North Korean issue becomes a China problem because the citizens
would want to escape if the government collapsed to China so China seem
to care about North Korean not South Korea? China can just refuse the
North Koreans to enter its country so it wouldn't be an issue but
probably out of pity it may decide to let them in. Why isn't it a South
Korea problem as they are both Korean? One would assume that there may
be family ancestry between North and South Korea. That makes me wonder
about South Korean people in regard to how the North Korean is treated
who has a "starving Korean population." There is a history of fighting
between the North and South Korean which may explain the behavior of the
two sides. South Korea has a population size of over 48 millions and
North Korea of over 24 millions so these are small countries. Japan is
larger than both Korea if combined so is Vietnam. South Korea is a puny
country even more so without North Korea. Korea use to be part of the
Japanese empire until world War II where Japan got nuke by the USA and
lost it all. Japan could have been a major force in Asia if World War II
turned out differently. But time changes and Japan is back, according to
"SIPRI Yearbook 2011 - world's top 15 military spenders", Japan ranks
6th in military spending. China is ranked 2nd in military spending where
USA is ranked 1st. But China has the largest population on earth as of
2012 and if it wanted to be the biggest military on earth it can with
the number of people it has. In a logical world, there is advantages in
having the biggest military. Having a large population is also
advantages to a country. A puny country can be taken over easily
compared to a larger country. A puny country's logical path of survival
is to make deals with larger countries for protection. The puny country
South Korea has military partnership with the United States called
Mutual Defense Treaty. The United States also maintain a military called
United States Forces Korea(USFK) in South Korea covering ground, air,
and naval. As this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/world_asia_south-korea-us-rape...>
points out, sometimes having military in another country means you have
to monitor your soldiers in case of incident such as rape claims. If
having a military is useless, do you think the USA would be the biggest
spender of it being close to six times that of China, the second largest
spender? So when we get news about North Korea testing its weapons, how
much can such a puny country like North Korea advanced in comparison to
the United States in weapons, maybe it is just for show? The United
States spends more in research and development than North Korea in
weapons so I am confident that the United States would win in this area.
But I can not say with 100% certainty because the only thing I want to
say with 100% certainty is that mental illness is a scam. Even the South
Korean spend more in military than the North Korean so it seems
pointless to cause public fear. Do you consider the USA as one who
dictates terms to others or others dictate terms to it? The USA has
military in various part of the world because it serves the USA interest
and it isn't free. The USA has a population that is poor so do you think
it is with "good" intention that the USA get involved in other
countries' issues to help their people who can one day compete against
the USA and costing the USA money and people? No, it is with the USA
military interest that is the reason as money can be spent on its own
people who are poor. The USA has military interest in the Middle East
for various reasons that is why it is there. It can be a nightmare to
the USA in the future if it doesn't turn out in its favor. Looking at
history, we can see how unprepared military people like native American,
African, etc, had what were their taken away by force. This is a reality
of life, as those who took it by force can tell you. Then there are
those that had their empire diminished over time and lost their glory as
proud conquerors because their military were unable to match their
opponent who form a better military. There was once the mighty British
empire but it no longer exists because somebody else became more mighty.
We cannot escape reality since the world is logical. One cannot live in
a fantasy land if one desires to be supreme or at least keep what one
has from being taken away.

    People can range from evil to good and that may affect their
decision. People who are good would perform acts in their life which
would be "good". People who are evil would perform acts in their life
which would be "evil". That is the extreme of the two behaviors. Mental
illness is a scam and it is evil so the people in the scam would be
towards the group into doing "evil" acts. But that is just a thought in
comparison to where I am 100% confident that mental illness is a scam.
Although I am only 100% confident that mental illness is a scam, it
doesn't mean what has been said is wrong either but I am not an insider
in the mental illness scam so I can only make conjecture. Suppose you
don't agree with the theory of a "deal" the psych industry has with
black people who are in the mental illness scam then what reason would
cause the black people in the mental illness scam to accept a ratio that
"people from afro-caribbean backgrounds are three to five times more
likely to be diagnosed for schizophrenia and admitted to hospital than
other backgrounds." Mental illness is a scam so there has to be a
logical explanation for the racial difference. Although I am not black,
I care enough to raise the issue to you the reader. Although I am not
black, I am telling you, if your black, the truth that mental illness is
a scam and your fellow black people don't seem to be giving you this
information. Although the USA now has a mix black president Obama, the
mental illness scam continues to operate and those with mental illness
do not benefit from it. Barack Obama doesn't care about you black
schizophrenics where if I was in his position, I would end the mental
illness scam. Barack Obama cares about getting votes but he does a poor
job as president of USA. It would be racist not to criticize Barack
Obama because he is a mix black person so I cannot be accused of such. I
think that people should be criticize equally that are in the public
eyes representing the public regardless of race. Just like in night time
television, I don't see enough of Obama jokes like other presidents
which is kind of "racist" just because he is a mix black president. It
would be more representative if the talk shows start pumping out more
Obama jokes to make for their lack of fair treatment to Obama.

    Do you think Barack Obama does such a poor job as president of USA
that people wonder if he is actually born in the USA? Barack Obama's
mother was 18 years old when she gave birth to him and Obama's father
already had a wife in Kenya named Kezia which he left while she was
pregnant and also a baby son named Roy to come to America. Barack
Obama's father was a man of faith who switched from being Roman
Catholicism to Islam where he took the name Hussein. Obama's father
finally died in his third car crash in Nairobi in 1982. His faith didn't
help him in the "misfortune" of being in car crashes. Barack Obama's
full name is Barack Hussein Obama II. So Barack also adopted the Hussein
name. Do you think Barack Obama would have existed if his father was an
honest man and said he had a pregnant wife and also a son in Kenya? Is
Barack Obama a product of a lie? It is just a philosophical point. It is
like the philosophical point that I am making, since mental illness is a
scam and the establishment doesn't seem to care to end it, how much do
you expect a person to do? Logically, I want to be known as the person
who said mental illness is a created illness which makes it a scam and I
even offered a solution to prove it. The White House has to post Obama's
birth certificate
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-...>
and there are people who still question Obama's birth even with the
birth certificate release. Obama is distrusted by many people. People
even think that Obama would go to great length to fabricate his birth
certificate - that is how much Obama is distrusted. I cannot make a
final conclusion about Obama's birth because the possibility still exist
that it may be true because why would people make such an accusation?
There are democrat, republican, black, white, etc, who question Barack
Obama's birth which means, they are calling him a liar because would you
question the words of someone you found to be honest? I will put it in
the category of inconclusive about Obama's birth disqualification for
presidency until I have absolute evidence. I found an interesting
article entitled "Obama Birth Certificate Maybe Forged, Sheriff Joe
Arpaio Says"
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/obama-birth-certificate-maybe-...>
so I am leaning towards maybe the birth of Obama isn't in the USA as
claimed but that isn't a complete determination as more evidence still
needs to surface so it is still inconclusive. The Sheriff took the time
with his fellow investigators and came to the conclusion the birth
document is not "authentic". The Sheriff's intention was to "clear"
Obama's name about the birth certificate issue when he did the
investigation as he said but the outcome raises more questions about
Obama's birth. The point is that Barack Obama is so distrusted even his
place of birth is questioned which is a first for a USA president. I can
only say I am 100% confident that mental illness is a scam so when I say
I am 100% confident, you can be sure I did extensive work to come to
such a conclusion. Barack Obama can be an amusing person. I was reading
an article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/obama-announce-accommodation-r...>
where it is said "Amid a backlash from many Catholics and proponents of
religious liberty, President Barack Obama announced Friday that his
administration will not require religious institutions like hospitals
and universities to provide free contraception to their employees in
their health insurance." The funny part is Barack said "As a citizen and
as a Christian" but being a "Christian" shouldn't Barack realize that he
would face "backlash" from Catholics? Where did Barack get his Christian
training? Of course, I am not of the Christian religion but I find the
behavior of Barack amusing. Those who of the Christian religion must be
quite upset to have voted for Barack Obama because their religious
belief dictates that "the government sought to make the church do
something we find unconscionable"
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Dolan-Urges-Catholics-to-Becom...>
because the statement comes from someone who represents the church on
birth control. Otherwise these people are not really religious, they are
just joining the Christian religion for some other benefits if they
don't find the sight of Obama upsetting. I will accept that people have
belief but if you have such belief then you should follow it otherwise
your an unethical person.

    Another article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/Obama-rings-up-slut.html> on
contraception "Obama rings up Limbaugh’s ‘slut,’ Georgetown’s Sandra
Fluke" I also found amusing. This women who Barack called to give
support said "Contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law
school," she said. "For a lot of students like me who are on public
interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary."
How much sex is this women getting that it would cost $3000? Does this
women represent other females who have this similar amount of sex and is
that typical of the law school she attends? In reality, most people
would be concern about food and shelter which the government is still
unable to provide coverage to for its entire citizens and an example
would be the homeless people in America's cities. Barack should be
focusing on jobs rather than finding ways to pay for people's sexual
protections because with a job they can pay for it themselves. There is
another article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/limbaugh-says-his-apology-to-s...>
"Limbaugh says his apology to student was sincere" on the issue on
contraception where he apologized for the language he used not the
reasons for his objection to the issue of debate. This Limbaugh said
"30-year-old was trying to force a religious institution to abandon its
principles to meet hers" but the funny part is advertisers are leaving
Limbaugh who stood up for his belief. So where are those who Limbaugh
stood up for, how come there is no support from the advertisers who
believe in Limbaugh's viewpoint? The Christian religion does have female
in it, what if some called this woman a "slut" like Limbaugh did? Would
it make a difference if the word "slut" came from a woman instead of a
man? In a logical word, I would assume there is a woman somewhere in the
world who would call this "student' a slut. Has America turn from being
a religious country? Are the Christian followers just in the religion
for other benefits not being TRUE believers in the religion? One would
assume a true believer of a religion would follow the "law" of the
religion so how many of the Christian followers are really true
believers of the religion? When the followers don't take the religion
seriously by not following its "law", why not end the religion? Why do I
raise such a point? Well, I believe people should be honest about what
they believe and stand behind it but I also believe that it is unfair to
let someone become a punching bag for standing up for what you believe
as well. I am not of the Christian religion but I don't hate those who
are honest about what they believe even if it is not what I believe
because an honest person can change as a liar can't be trusted. I am not
also of the Islam religion but you can bet if Islam followers were
against contraception, it would not be permitted in its society and the
politicians could possibly be "hanged".  America is not a majority Islam
country but in the country that has majority Islam, one can assume they
follow the "law" of their religion in other words Islam explicitly
allows birth control so is the Christian religion "intact" as it
originally intended because logic dictates it is no longer a TRUE
religion when it is no longer "intact" the way it was intended. Religion
has its own "law" that unlike the law created by government, it is
created by "divine" guidance that cannot be changed since that who
created the "divine" law no longer exists. Government can change the
"law" because society changes but religion is a "faith" and that makes
it unchangeable because once it is changed it is no longer the same
"faith" that it was intended. The Christian religion and Islam religion
believe in an afterlife so it would be categorized as the afterlife
religion but they do differ such as birth control. It would fall within
acceptable behavior if those who follow the Christian religion decided
to show their displeasure at Obama in a public fashion as he went
against their belief on issues such as birth control wherever Obama
speaks because America is that kind of country and those who do so are
TRUE believers in the religion otherwise why join the religion at all
because those who follow Islam would certainly show their displeasure at
those who went against their religion. Voters do take into consideration
a candidate's religion and it is a betrayal of the voters' trust when
the candidate do not follow his religion which makes him a FALSE
believer of the religion which means he is dishonest only joining the
religion to get votes.

     An example of the Christian religion is The Roman Catholic church
which is said to have over 1.3 billion members worldwide so how many are
really TRUE believers? Given such a large number of people are of the
Roman Catholic type, these people who exercise their buying power in a
common voice can have a major influence on businesses, politics, etc,
which is their right to do so because it is their money and they can
spend it as they wish. Is the "In God We Trust" phrase that appears in
US coins since 1864 and paper currency since 1957 still that of a
Christian "God" or some other "God" because which direction is America
moving to in terms of belief? While most people would say the USA has a
phrase of separation of church and state, the fact that such a phrase
"In God We Trust" exists in its currency speaks differently because
there are also atheists in the USA who don't believe in God so the
separation of church and state is not as believed. Also, people who work
for the state are of a certain religion such as Christian and how can
they separate from it because it is part of what they believe and that
shape their thinking. The Christian religion has so many denominations
that there should be a common belief on issues such as homosexual,
contraceptive, abortion, etc. The largest denomination in the USA is
Protestant over 50%, followed by Catholic almost 25% based on a 2007
statistic. Also homosexual represents such a small percentage of the USA
population, for instance gay men are less than 1% of the population, and
gay women(less number than gay men) are also less than 1% of the
population and adding both would just be over 1% of the population so it
is meaningless when compared to the heterosexual population. People take
notice of gay people I suppose because they are different from the
general population, like watching people behave like weirdo on daytime
talk shows because there are such audiences. Sometimes being gay gets
attention such as this person's son is gay because who would care when
the headline reads this person's son is heterosexual. Being abnormal is
attention getting because normal events are not that interesting as it
is common. These are simple issues such as homosexual, contraceptive,
abortion, etc, that should have a direct answer because it is still the
Christian religion and the denominations should have voted on the issues
and be done with it so there would be a common voice. When I read the
article "Nuns Gone Wild!", Mother Mary Clare Millea raised an
interesting point which is "American nuns are pushing radical-feminist
themes incompatible with the Catholic faith” which I tend to agree with
following her logic. This "incompatible" can create issues for the
church that wishes a unified voice, or a stronger voice for its belief.
Is it the same "faith" from the same "prophet" when the answers to
simple issues are different-the answer is obvious. Using logic, if it is
from the same "prophet", then the answers should be the same for the
issues being asked. In simple term, there should be a core belief held
among the denominations which is not negotiable. Either accept the core
belief or you can't be a denomination of our religion which is how I
would have done it. So I am making a comparison of the two afterlife
religions, Christian and Islam to show which religion has more TRUE
believers although other religions exist. Perhaps Obama doesn't
represent Christian values because in this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/poll-obama-muslim.html> "In
Alabama, the same poll found that 45 percent of likely Republican voters
believed Obama to be a Muslim." Of course one would say if you don't
represent Christian values are you really Christian? Then there are
those who even believe Obama may be some Muslim conspiracy out to
destroy America but I would rather say Obama is doing a poor job as
President as there isn't sufficient evidence to reach such a conclusion
such as being a Muslim implant to destroy America.

     Limbaugh may not be far off on Obama as this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/rush-limbaugh-michelle-obama-f...>
points out "Rush Limbaugh called Michelle Obama a hypocrite on his
Monday show, saying that, while the First Lady advocates healthy eating,
she "doesn't look like [she] follows her own...dietary advice" because
"Limbaugh was reacting to a report from Colorado which mentioned that
Obama ate ribs at a restaurant during her skiing holiday there this past
weekend." Hypocrite strikes again as I read in this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/lunch-for-obama-its-baby-back-...>
where Barack Obama had baby back ribs and hotdog so why doesn't Barack
follow her advice on "healthy eating" as she dispense to the American
people? If Barack Obama can eat such "unhealthy" food why not the
American people? I certainly don't have a problem with people eating
whatever they want because it would be hypocritical as I enjoy the so
called "unhealthy" food. The important point to ask is, are people
honest about who they are, if not why trust what they say? I read an
article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/la-he-five-questions-walter-wi...>
that advises against red meat which said "We also got emails that said,
"My Aunt Bertha ate meat three times a day her whole life and lived to
be 95!"" and follow by "Of course, yes. You can find people who smoked a
pack of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100, too. Any one example
doesn't make the case." But notice the word emails which is plural and
the world is a big place so it isn't one example, it would add up to
many examples. Are we human built that differently? Then why can one
person eat red meat without issue and not another. The investigation
doesn't get to the real explanation. I enjoy eating red meat. There are
people in the world who don't want to eat meat for various reasons but
they are the minority of the population. Even in today's time, avoiding
"meat" can be a problem if one examines it at a closer level. According
to this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/chocolate-allergies-linked-coc...>
"Aside from chocolate, cockroach parts also make their way into peanut
butter, macaroni, fruit, cheese, popcorn and wheat." Obama is called a
flip-flopper or a hypocrite in this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/obama-super-pac-donors-have-ea...>
where he was once against super PAC and calling it a “threat to
democracy” but now embrace it. "Obama was once so vocal about super PACs
that, during his 2010 State of the Union speech, he accused the Supreme
Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision of reversing a century of law
that would “open the floodgates for special interests.”"

     I suppose this article
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/links/la-na-obama-budget.html> puts it
best on Obama's job performance "Today's analysis serves as a
disappointing reminder of this administration's broken promises and
failed leadership when it comes to averting the most predictable
economic crisis in our history." It doesn't ...

download full message