21% of the "White" population is "Black" & over 70% of the "Black" population is "White" due to White Klepto-Parasitism.

White men, for hundreds of years, raped Black women and then sold the product of their own loins.

Growing up, looking at the ever lightening complexions of some Blacks, which seemed to straddle the razor thin divide between Black and White, I thought to myself. "one day, we'll all look like some hodge podge mixed raced creation."

At that young age, what I failed to appreciate is that this process had been taking place for so long, and on such a large scale, that today, millions of Whites, are of African descent, but do not know it.

As successive generations of slavemasters raped ever whitening African women, who, seeing as they were still recognizably Black, were by law, "Black" there were many who had experienced complexion revolutions to the point that in all possible visual interpretation, they were "White"

These "slaves" were often set free, and allowed to move north, with a bit of money and perhaps some paperwork to show that they were "White" and then they started lives as free Whites.

Today, it is estimated that no less than 20% (in Western & Northern States) and up to 30-35% (in Southern & Eastern States) of "Whites" are actually of Black descent, yet, call themselves "White" despite this nations designation of anywhere from "1/20th" to the "one drop rule" as a definition of "Black".

Please refer to the Genetic Study by Robert P. Stuckey of The Ohio State University.

Robert P. Stuckey Study Results:
The data in table 1 indicate that approximately 21 percent of the persons classified as white in 1950 have an African element in their inherited biological background. The percentage of persons classified as white having some degree of African ancestry was extremely small in 1790. The percentage figures for successive censual years increased most rapidly between 1790 and 1850. Although this is partly a function of the computational methods used, it is characteristic of interbreeding populations. The figures for the period 1850 to 1890 were comparatively stable. Between 1900 and 1930, the percentage declined slightly. These two shifts were primarily the result of large-scale immigration from Europe. With the curtailing of this immigration,again in 1930.


Study Abstract:

ROBERT P. STUCKERT
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Defining a racial group generally poses a problem to social scientists. Adefinition of a race has yet to be proposed that is satisfactory for all purposes.This is particularly true when the racial group has minority group status as doesthe Negro group in the United States. To many persons, however, the matterof race definition is no problem. They view humanity as being divided intocompletely separate racial compartments. A Negro is commonly defined as aperson having any known trace of Negro ancestry or "blood" regardless of howfar back one must go to find it. A concomitant belief is that all whites are freeof the presumed taint of Negro ancestry or "blood."The purpose of this research was to determine the validity of this belief in thenon-Negro ancestry of persons classified as white. Current definitions of Negromay have serious limitations when used as bases for classifying persons accordingto ancestry (Berry, 1951). The terms African and non-African will be usedrather than Negro and white when discussing the ancestry of an individual. Eachof the former pair of terms has a more specific referent which is the geographicpoint of origin of an individual. At the same time, the two pairs of terms areclosely related. Hence, this paper is the report of an attempt to estimate thepercentage of persons classified as white that have African ancestry or genesreceived from an African ancestor.This raises a question concerning the relationship between having an Africanancestor and receiving one or more genes from this ancestor. Since one-half ofan individual's genetic inheritance is received from each parent, the probabilityof a person with one African ancestor within the previous eight generations receivingany single gene from this ancestor is equal to or greater than (0.5) 8 or 3.9063 x 10 3 .It has been estimated that there are approximately 48,000 gene loci on 24 chromo-some pairs (Stern, 1950). The probability that an individual with one Africanancestor has one or more genes derived from this ancestor is equal to l-(l-3.9063 x10-3)24,ooo o r g rea ter than 0.9998. Having more than one African ancestor increasesthis probability. One final remark needs to be made. Some degree of Africanancestry is not necessarily related to the physical appearance of the individual.Many of the genes possessed by virtue of descent from an African do not distinguishthe bearer from persons of non-African ancestry. They are the genes or potentialsfor traits which characterize the human race. Nevertheless, these genes representan element in the biological constitution of the individual inherited from anAfrican.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The research methodology of this study involved constructing a genetic prob-ability table. The primary function of this type of table is to ascertain the dis-tribution within a known population of a variable that can not be observeddirectly. It is frequently used to estimate the changes that occur in the geneticcomposition of a population over a period of time. There are three basic stepsin the computation of a genetic probability table.1. A series of assumptions which serve as a basis for the table is made. Theseassumptions may refer to the initial distribution of the variable within the popu- *Revision of a paper read at the annual meeting of The Ohio Academy of Science held inBowling Green, Ohio, April 19, 1957. THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 58(3): 155, May, 1958.


LITERATURE CITED:
Bancroft, G. 1891. History of the United States. Vol. 2. D. Appleton and Co., New York.565 pp.
Berry, B. 1951. Race Relations. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 487 pp.
Bromwell, W. 1856. History of Immigration to the United States. Redfield, New York.225 pp.
Burma, J. H. 1946. The measurement of Negro "passing." Amer. Jour. Sociol. 52: 18-22.
Carey, H. C. 1853. The Slave Trade. A. Hart, Philadelphia. 426 pp.
Day, C. B. 1932. A Study of Some Negro-white Families in the United States. HarvardAfrican Studies. Vol. 10. Harvard University, Cambridge. 126 pp.
Dublin, L. I. 1928. Health and Wealth. Harper and Brothers, New York. 361 pp.
Eckard, E. W. 1947. How many Negroes "pass"? Amer. Jour. Sociol. 52: 498-500.
Frazier, E. F. 1939. The Negro Family in the United States. The University of ChicagoPress, Chicago. 686 pp.
Glass, B. and C. C. Li. 1953. The dynamics of racial intermixture—an analysis based on theAmerican Negro. Amer. Jour. Human Genet. 5: 1-20.
Greene, E. B. 1932. American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York. 228 pp.
Hart, H. 1921. Selective Migration as a Factor in Child Welfare in the United States, withSpecial Reference to Iowa. University of Iowa, Iowa City. 137 pp.
Herskovits, M. J. 1928. The American Negro: A Study in Racial Crossing. Alfred A.Knopf, New York. 92 pp.. 1930.
The Anthropometry of the American Negro. Columbia University Press,New York. 283 pp.
Hooton, E. A. 1939. Crime and the Man. Harvard University, Cambridge. 403 pp.
Hrdlicka, A. 1928. The full-blood American Negro. Amer. Jour. Phys. Anthro. 12: 15-33.
Stern, C. 1950. Principles of Human Genetics. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.617 pp.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1909. A Century of Population Growth from the First Censusof the United States to the Twelth, 1790-1900. Government Printing Office, Washington.303 pp.
U.S. National Resources Committee. 1938. The Problems of a Changing Population. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington. 28 pp.

Creative Forces

We've secured a key endorsement. "The" key endorsement, and now we've got a well placed propoganda machine ready to spit out a salvo to several thousand like minded individuals. Everything builds. First, you've got to clarify the idea then turn it into a goal, then get the right people, build a foundation, come bring in the vital elements. As one comes in, you bring in the other.

Any halfway decent group knows the power of propaganda and images and visuals in furthering their cause. From the peacock to the zebra to even the black panther, even nature knows the power and inherent meaning of a striking visual to aid the cause of survival.

Right now, (in addition to everything else) we're in the planning stages, of transferring the information from the mind, to the public at large. In 2008 that means flyers, cyberspace, magazines, radio and spoken word. To support this you need easily digestible text and images that elicit the feelings, concepts and desire that will move the idea forward.

Also, this necessitates making contact with key individuals who are experts, or in positions to release your ideas forward to a larger mass. club owners, publishers, artist, dj's, administrators, and printers... it's tough to start out from scratch, so hopefully you already know who can be trusted to follow through, and who can only talk a good game, but lacks the capacity to churn out the product in the amount and quality that is needed.

the struggle goes on.

If You Want To Do Right, You Have To Be Responsible

I give up. I'm tired. This is bullshit. Wave the white flag, sign the god-damn Potsdam agreement. Bring in the foreign ministers, to hell with the hinterland. flush it all down the toilet...

One of the things about bleeding hearts is that they are ridiculously inefficient as a means of intervention. One bleeding heart social worker will spend hours a week with a manipulative, needy, insatiable client, at the expense of those several clients that really need/could use/are deserving of social work intervention.

If you want to change the system, then you have to be efficient. You have to be able to say "no" you have to be able to define who it is you are supposed to work with and who it is that doesn't meet your criteria. There's a huge difference between someone that's totally jacked up, desperate, needy and has a bunch of issues, and someone that you can actually help. Sometimes they aren't the same person.

People want all kinds of things. If you are a professional, then it's your job to find out what they NEED. Not what they WANT. We are not here to take dictation from folks that have proven themselves to be train wrecks.

and everything comes at a price. If we give, then we must "get". behaviors have to change. some different pattern must be engaged. there must be accountability.

This is what is meant by "responsible". If you want to do right, then it's more than being a bleeding heart, and handing out endless band aids. We're teaching folks to fish, and helping those that can't fish for themselves.

it is becoming increasingly difficult with profit motive putting so much pressure on the system, changing the game, using new terminology, new goals, new missions, new philosophies an definitions.

it is our role, as social workers, to wade through this morass, make sense of it, and bring order to it. But you can't be a bleeding heart.

Whether you work in the medical, mental health, health care, benefits, housing, drug treatment... no matter. As social workers, we must be every mindful as well as armed with our knives to cut through the veils of illusion, to get to that which is real. Name it, sustain it and turn it loose.

Einstein's Great Leap.

During a 4 month period from March to June 1905, Einstein wrote 4 papers and his doctoral dissertation. In a very casual and understated letter written to his friend Conrad Habicht, he announced his intentions.

Dear Habicht,
Such a solemn air of silence has descended between us that I almost feel as if I am committing a sacrilege when I brek it now wiht some inconsequential babble.. So what are you up to, you frozen whale, you smoked dried canned piece of soul...? Why have you still not sent me your dissertations? Don't you know that I am one of the 1&1/2 fellows who would read it with interest and pleasure, you wretched man? I promise you four papers in return. The first deals with radiation and the energy properties of light and is very revolutionary, as you will see if you send me your work first. The second paper is a determination of the true sizes of atoms... The third proves that bodies on the order of magnitude of 1/1000 mm, suspended in liquids, must already perform an observable random motion that is produced by thermal motion ... The fourth paper is only a rough draft at this point, and is an electrodynamics of moving bodies which employs a modification of the theory of space and time.

The four papers he was talking about were,
1. Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light, which is an explanation of the photoelectric effect.
2. On the Movement of Small Particles Suspended in Stationary Liquids Required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat, which was his successful third attempt at getting a doctoral thesis.
3. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, concerning his Invention of the theory of special relativity, and finally,
4. Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content? which extends his invention of the theory of special relativity, and introduces the E = mc2 equasion.

To come up with these great ideas, Einstein had to dispense with 2 generations of belief that there was an all pervading "ether" AND assert that light is both a wave and a (quanta) photon. To do this, he had to answer the question, "What is light?" and "Why is the velocity of light always 186,000 miles per second?" To figure out the answer to this question required Einstein to make one of the most astounding realizations in science.

1. The nature of light: One of the great mysteries of Einstein's time was how was light transmitted? Was it "sprayed" out in a shower of particles or photons? Or was it something else? As Einstein started to ponder this he had to think of what it would mean if light was in the form of particles rushing forth from a source. One of the problems in this is that if light was in the form of particles or photons, then if it were emanating from a source at it's known velocity of 186,000 miles per second, then if the source were moving towards you at say, 10,000 miles per second, then the velocity of light would appear to you to be moving towards you at 196,000 miles per second. But tests had shown that regardless of where the light was coming from, or how fast the source was moving towards you or away from you, it was always a constant 186,000 miles per second. That didn't make sense to Einstein (or anybody else). Equally as disturbing was the fact that if the light were stationary, and the recipient were moving (say, on a train) either towards the source, or away from the source, the velocity of the light still remained at 186,000 miles per second. If light were in the form of particles or beams, then the only way it could maintain a constant velocity, regardless of how fast the source was moving, or the recipient, would be if the particles were encoded, or otherwise knew that how fast the source and recipient was moving. Test showed that this was not the case.

Another mystery was how did light move through space? The generally accepted notion was that space was composed of a type of super, seemingly imperceptible, low viscosity "ether" that served as a medium for the light particles or waves to pass through, much like water conducted waves, or atmospheric gases carried the force of wind. Despite many experiments, this "ether" could not be detected.

2. While walking and talking to his friend, Michaela Besso, Einstein was suddenly hit with one of the most profound realizations in the history of mankind. Suddenly the point of conjecture that had perplexed man for years, was illuminated. Einstein realized that if light was a constant, then time can not be absolutely be defined. TIME itself must be a variable.. This realization changed physics from that day forward. Newton had contemplated this problem in his day, and to solve it he resorted to the conclusion that the divine being was the one watcher that had been observing existence from the moment of it's creation. From the time that Einstein made his realization, It was only a mere 5 weeks before he produced the paper, "The electrodynamics of moving bodies".

Einstein explained the concept in the following way (paraphrased). Two events that appear to be simultaneous to one observer, may not be simultaneous to a second observer, therefore, there's no way to prove that the event was simultaneous.

Einstein used a thought experiment to illustrate this. suppose two lightning bolts strike opposite sides of a railroad embankment, we may define the strikes as simultaneous if we are standing exactly between the two strikes, HOWEVER, if there is someone on a train and they were rushing towards one one of the lightning strikes it will appear to them that the lightening bolt they are heading towards will strike before the other one. The point is that two different individuals will perceive the same event as happening at different times, or at the same time, depending upon their perspective. The point? Time is relative.

While explaining his paper at a conference, a question arose from the audience. Someone wanted to know if in Einstein's universe, since time was relative, would it be possible for twins to age differently? Einstein paused for a few seconds and then answered, "Yes". This question and answer, is now what is known as the "twin paradox".

If one twin went on a round-trip to a destination 21 light years away traveling at the speed of light, upon returning, 42 years would have passed on Earth, but only 12 hours, would have passed on the spaceship. . . If the trip were to the edge of the known universe (9 billion light years away), and back, although 18 billion years would have passed on Earth, only 1 day and 6 hours would have passed on the space ship. . . In Einstein's concept of general relativity, there is space/time seeing as they are both relative.
Space Ship Calculator

Our Delirious Stumble Into The Ditch Of Diagnosis

Disturbing Trends. Disturbing Trends.
This past Sunday an article appeared in the S.F. Gate "Insight" supplement concerning an ethical breach involving the U.S.'s preeminent child psychiatrists and his unreported millions from drug companies. Beneath this wholesale money grab is the crux of the true issue, which is the proliferation of psychiatric medications being routinely dispensed to children. Children. In my present employment, I face these individuals, all grown up, on a daily basis. The thought that they are being medicated as young as 2 years old, is shocking, heart-breaking and akin to the wave of barbaric lobotomy's that were practiced in the last century.

In this article by Dr. Lawrence Diller, he reveals that one in nine 11-year old boys are currently on Ritalin for ADHD. There is currently a "bi-polar" wave sweeping across the nation that currently has 2 year olds on 2-3 different psychiatric medications. The Doctor who is leading this charge is Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard University, and he was paid $1.6 million in drug company consulting fees, and his research, researchers, research MD's are all being paid by drug companies. The main problem with all of this, is that Dr. Biederman, who is a major trendsetter in terms of best practices and cutting edge treatments, didn't bother to tell anyone, including Harvard, his patients, employees, or organizations he consults with and lectures to, that he had this arrangement.

Dr. Diller states: "The fortune 500 drug companies, by their sheer economic clout have become the single most dominant influence in our health care system. the ambiguities of children's mental health and illness make child psychiatry the most vulnerable branch of medicine open to such influence... direct advertisements to parents tilt families and doctors to biologically brain based solutions rather than non drug... approaches."

The level of carnage is even greater than Dr. Diller states, for every community mental health center, community care center, youth authority, juvenile detention facility, jail and prison is now one of the largest cash cows in the entire mental health system. Inmates who use and abuse drugs, have traumatic childhoods, depression, brain damage, and issues dealing with their incarceration are being tossed psychiatric medications faster and easier than any group of individuals in the U.S.

The MD's that dispense these medications do not have to worry about getting paid, or the state of the inmates insurance, or their co-pay, or ability to pay, or if they need a low costs generic, or if they can get to the pharmacy or even make the next appointment. The more they prescribe, the less they have to talk, while at the same time, the more invaluable they become to the system. and the drug companies can direct market to the psychiatrists in the system. In addition, the Psychiatrists in these settings are, by a large margin, the highest paid psychiatrists in the State, County and City government. in 2007, 38 of the top 100 highest paid California State Employees were psychiatrists.

The Budget for the Alameda County Jail is over $1.2 million, just for medications for the last year, and has increased by over 10% a year for the last 10 years. At any given time 18% of the jails population is being served by the Mental Health Unit (700 of 3,800).

The more we diagnose, the more people we will label, and the more diagnoses we will develop. In psychiatry, the trend is that anyone who feels sad, excited, confused, distraught, can't sleep, can't stay awake, doesn't behave as desired, does not progress as the "average" is a candidate for psychiatric medications.

There was a show that profiled Dr. Kiki Change of Stanford University, who had begun to dispense medications to children, not because they had a psychiatric condition, but rather, because they exhibited signs that lead this MD to believe that one day they may develop a mental health condition, and so, this MD was prescribing adult anti-psychotic, mood stabilizing and anti-depressants to children in an effort he described as "protecting them".

from the website:

As Director of the Pediatric Bipolar Disorders Program, Dr. Chang conducts research into various facets of bipolar disorder. He is currently conducting phenomenologic, biologic, pharmacologic, and genetic studies of bipolar disorder in adults and children. These studies include brain imaging (MRI, MRS, fMRI) and medication and therapy trials. He is particularly interested in detecting prodromal bipolar disorder in children who might then be treated to prevent the development of full bipolar disorder. To do this, he has been studying children of parents with bipolar disorder who are at high risk for developing the disorder themselves.

All of these trends are inter-related. Once we have lowered the bar on what children are liable to do, and are expected to do, and what is appropriate for them to do, then what we have in effect done, is leave them out in the cold and vulnerable to be diagnosed as something being "wrong" with them. In our jails and prisons, mental hospitals and outpatient centers where these children may end up, they are much more likely to be diagnosed.

The problem I face on a daily basis is maintaining a highly trained and discriminating workforce that has the ability to function outside of the bounds of the DSM-IV, and has the interest and capacity to engage in a discussion with an individual about their lives and choices they've made and what resources they have at their disposal. We need workers who can understand what's going on in people's lives. Recognize patterns, discuss options and solutions, instead of merely taking dictation and then an order for medications.

Having gained an appreciation for the issue of persons with mental illness on the streets and in outpatient centers and inpatient locked mental health facilities, I appreciate the value of major psychiatric medications in combination with therapy, counseling and social services, to allow individuals who would otherwise be in locked settings or in a dilapidated social condition, to live and work in society. But even with that, the number of individuals who require this type of intervention constitutes at best 1-2% of a given population.

How did we get to a point in our society, where we have such little faith in our ability to resolve our issues, solve our problems and live, learn and grow that we must throw a pill at anyone that isn't experiencing an inner subjective feeling other than contentment? As long as we continue to spiral down in ever increasing budgets for high costs psychiatric medications and the even more highly inefficient infrastructure that supports the psychiatric/mental health system, we will be robbed of our ability to make an effective change in the lives of individuals who need the guidance and support of society at large.