Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why are more blacks schizophrenic?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
DP
Feb 4, 2012, 8:06:35 AM2/4/12
to
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_race_or_nationality_of_male_human_beings.html>
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, 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. 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. 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-population-below-poverty-line>,
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? 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. What if
you build a place where you would not have this "dream" when you sleep
show up anymore? So the question is why not? "Dream", "nightmare" do not
exist. 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"? 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
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. 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 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? 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 to black people and black
people look too different in skin color to white people, why would the
two race mix? 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. Consider that people practice discrimination in choosing a
sexual partner. 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.
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. 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
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 and black 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. 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 to enslave white people and didn't do so,
what does that say about white people who took the opportunity to
enslave black people? 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. 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.
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.
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-birth-certificate>
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. 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.
You black schizophrenics should wonder why there is more black
schizophrenics since mental illness is a scam and there are black people
involved in the scam. You black schizophrenics are the losers in this.
The theory of a "deal" was being kind, otherwise black people are more
evil than white. Since black people are also involved in the scam then
having more black being schizophrenics is to be more evil without some
sort of "deal"? Wouldn't black people in the scam want something in
return since the other "race" has less schizophrenics so it supports a
"deal" theory? Both white people and black people are in the scam yet
there are more black schizophrenics. White people wouldn't go along with
having more white schizophrenics. The mental illness scam is evil.
Suppose I take the current view by those in the psych industry, what is
it about blacks that make them more "schizophrenic?". Is it a genetic
inferiority, stress, a virus, etc, why more blacks have it? If there is
such a "cause" wouldn't there be even more blacks with schizophrenia
because it is in an uptrend in comparison to other race? Since the psych
industry does not have a specific "cause" for schizophrenia then there
is no way to control the increase. According to the psych's logic, there
should even be more black schizophrenics as the uptrend would dictate.
Assuming a "illness" model by the psych industry, black schizophrenics
would be more than it currently is which is not the case so the
"illness" model doesn't make sense so it supports the "scam" model. Even
thought black people in the scam may take having more black
schizophrenics, it is unfair to those who are victims who don't want to
be part of the game being played who are not black. But creating an
"illness" of this sort requires using other races to make it believable
yet it isn't fair if that is the intention to those who don't want to be
part of the game. Black people in the scam may have some sort of "deal"
but at whose expense? The deal must be something that is beneficial to
black people in the scam otherwise why accept having more black
schizophrenics? If it isn't the "deal" that is theorized, then what deal
would you say it is?
The mental illness scam is globally operated but I am the only
person who has the solution
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/selfprot.html> and care enough to
analyze it for you readers. Let us put things in perspective, I don't
benefit financially in what I do but those who are in the mental illness
scam do benefit from what they do so they would be against what I say.
Although I am unemployed, I am willing to use my limited resources to
provide the information to you because I care that much. I recall being
able to find employment with other USA presidents but not president
Obama. Am I picking on the mix black president Obama because he is
black? But I also call the FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director a scumbag
and he is white. I don't play favorite when it comes to whom I ridicule.
Everyone is fair game. In the USA there is no Chinese president or
Chinese FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director because I would ridicule them
as well if that was the case as I have legitimate reasons for doing so.
When the mental illness scam ends all races can benefit because the
deception of the psych industry is to spread its mental illness around
to every race so that it looks like an illness when there is no
definitive cause for the illness like schizophrenia because mental
illness is a scam. So if your Asian, White, Black, homosexual,
heterosexual, etc, who was diagnosed mentally ill, I care that much that
I have called the FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director a scumbag. I am 100%
confident mental illness is a scam and anybody is welcome to tell the
FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director what I said about him and I would
encourage the behavior because I am that confident. I care that much
that I have challenged the whole psych industry
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/index2.html> because I am 100%
confident mental illness is a scam. So if anyone has doubt about what I
say, I suggest the person takes a reading comprehension course because I
am 100% confident mental illness is a scam.
http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/psyracist.html
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_race_or_nationality_of_male_human_beings.html>
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, 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. 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. 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-population-below-poverty-line>,
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? 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. What if
you build a place where you would not have this "dream" when you sleep
show up anymore? So the question is why not? "Dream", "nightmare" do not
exist. 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"? 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
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. 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 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? 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 to black people and black
people look too different in skin color to white people, why would the
two race mix? 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. Consider that people practice discrimination in choosing a
sexual partner. 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.
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. 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
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 and black 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. 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 to enslave white people and didn't do so,
what does that say about white people who took the opportunity to
enslave black people? 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. 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.
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.
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-birth-certificate>
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. 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.
You black schizophrenics should wonder why there is more black
schizophrenics since mental illness is a scam and there are black people
involved in the scam. You black schizophrenics are the losers in this.
The theory of a "deal" was being kind, otherwise black people are more
evil than white. Since black people are also involved in the scam then
having more black being schizophrenics is to be more evil without some
sort of "deal"? Wouldn't black people in the scam want something in
return since the other "race" has less schizophrenics so it supports a
"deal" theory? Both white people and black people are in the scam yet
there are more black schizophrenics. White people wouldn't go along with
having more white schizophrenics. The mental illness scam is evil.
Suppose I take the current view by those in the psych industry, what is
it about blacks that make them more "schizophrenic?". Is it a genetic
inferiority, stress, a virus, etc, why more blacks have it? If there is
such a "cause" wouldn't there be even more blacks with schizophrenia
because it is in an uptrend in comparison to other race? Since the psych
industry does not have a specific "cause" for schizophrenia then there
is no way to control the increase. According to the psych's logic, there
should even be more black schizophrenics as the uptrend would dictate.
Assuming a "illness" model by the psych industry, black schizophrenics
would be more than it currently is which is not the case so the
"illness" model doesn't make sense so it supports the "scam" model. Even
thought black people in the scam may take having more black
schizophrenics, it is unfair to those who are victims who don't want to
be part of the game being played who are not black. But creating an
"illness" of this sort requires using other races to make it believable
yet it isn't fair if that is the intention to those who don't want to be
part of the game. Black people in the scam may have some sort of "deal"
but at whose expense? The deal must be something that is beneficial to
black people in the scam otherwise why accept having more black
schizophrenics? If it isn't the "deal" that is theorized, then what deal
would you say it is?
The mental illness scam is globally operated but I am the only
person who has the solution
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/selfprot.html> and care enough to
analyze it for you readers. Let us put things in perspective, I don't
benefit financially in what I do but those who are in the mental illness
scam do benefit from what they do so they would be against what I say.
Although I am unemployed, I am willing to use my limited resources to
provide the information to you because I care that much. I recall being
able to find employment with other USA presidents but not president
Obama. Am I picking on the mix black president Obama because he is
black? But I also call the FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director a scumbag
and he is white. I don't play favorite when it comes to whom I ridicule.
Everyone is fair game. In the USA there is no Chinese president or
Chinese FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director because I would ridicule them
as well if that was the case as I have legitimate reasons for doing so.
When the mental illness scam ends all races can benefit because the
deception of the psych industry is to spread its mental illness around
to every race so that it looks like an illness when there is no
definitive cause for the illness like schizophrenia because mental
illness is a scam. So if your Asian, White, Black, homosexual,
heterosexual, etc, who was diagnosed mentally ill, I care that much that
I have called the FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director a scumbag. I am 100%
confident mental illness is a scam and anybody is welcome to tell the
FBI <http://www.fbi.gov> director what I said about him and I would
encourage the behavior because I am that confident. I care that much
that I have challenged the whole psych industry
<http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/index2.html> because I am 100%
confident mental illness is a scam. So if anyone has doubt about what I
say, I suggest the person takes a reading comprehension course because I
am 100% confident mental illness is a scam.
http://www.destroypsychiatry.org/psyracist.html
DP
Feb 7, 2012, 8:33:10 AM2/7/12
to
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
Davej
Feb 7, 2012, 11:52:36 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 4, 7:06 am, DP <d...@destroypsychiatry.org> wrote:
> [...]
Why don't you do more reading and less blabbering?
http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-race-mental-illness-20120206,0,6144413.story?track=icymi
> [...]
Why don't you do more reading and less blabbering?
http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-race-mental-illness-20120206,0,6144413.story?track=icymi
0 new messages