Dialogues With A Christ - The Wisdom of Divine Anarchy

If you are ready to invite
and assist in ushering in a New
Consciousness on this Planet, then
welcome to our Spiritual Dialogue

Media Unmasked

By Raymond Karczewski

Media Unmasked is an excerpt from my Book on Tape:  Christs with Amnesia

     Fairness in broadcasting, fact or fiction? Let me tell you a story. Everything that will be said is true and can be documented. Only the names will be omitted to abide with this newspaper's policy. A Southern Oregon FM radio station with a talk show format caught my attention well over a year ago. I was drawn to it by its high energy, which I chalked up to the air of confusion and debate whipped up by its format. (This station has since established itself as headquarters for a national radio talk show network in our country.) 

     To the listeners of the station, I am known as Ray of Cave Junction. Little did I know that I had just stepped into the twilight zone of talk radio.

     As my calls increased, I became less welcome to the talk show hosts; as they became more and more uncomfortable with questions that could not be easily parried through their cleverness. I soon learned the image of free speech was just that, an illusion. At one point I attempted to purchase advertising time on the station, but was refused with no reason given other than it was a station board of director’s decision to do so. My advertising did reach the air after my wife called and embarrassed the station on the air while they were conducting a tirade against a Rogue Valley television station that had refused their advertising.

     The day my ad went on, and continuing for the month’s duration of the advertising period, the station created an ad of their own which they positioned adjacent to my ad. Their ad was made from select statements made by me, but taken out of context. The ad was designed specifically to ridicule and discredit me. Certainly not the way for a business to treat one of its customers.

     Soon portions of my calls were censored through the use of several techniques. At times it was through the use of static noise blanking out a statement at a critical point; at other times, through the lowering of the volume at the control level so that parts of the statements could not be heard. On one such occasion this was followed by being cut off entirely while the host continued speaking as if I were still on the phone while putting his finishing spin on the subject, then closing by thanking me for my call long after I had been cut off.

     Ultimately, my calls were refused altogether. All of these things were done with such expertise and finesse that it could not be detected by the listening audience. Finally, when my call was refused by the show’s producer at the direction of the host, a member of the station’s board of directors, I was effectively silenced; stopped from further communication altogether.
     My wife called the show some twenty minutes later and exposed to the listening audience what had just happened. At that point, the talk show host, a member of the board of directors, in an attempt to bully my wife, threatened to expose damaging information about me if she persisted with the call. My wife, shaken by the bullying tactics, was stunned. At my direction, my wife told the host to say what he was going to say—to air the statements. After several moments of silence, all the host could utter was, "That’s it. I don’t want to talk about it any longer." and cut her off the air. Too late—the slanderous innuendo had already been implanted in the minds of the listening audience, and I was now effectively silenced from responding directly to any further statements of that nature made at that level of the media. (This same tactic was used by another talk show host on the same station, another program, to another caller subsequent to my experience. Coincidental?)

     On September 1, 1993, between 9 and 11 a.m., a woman (a regular caller known to the station as Barbara) called in identifying herself as a self-admitted Man-eater and spoke to one of the hosts, a self-admitted hypnotist. After engaging the hosts in a mutual admiration and reinforcing conversation, reflecting a clear identification and common goal, this is what the woman said, and I quote; WE HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY SOMEONE ELSE’S CHARACTER BY CHOOSING THE RIGHT ACCUSATION THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN IN THIS LIFETIME. This comment was given assent by both hosts, one of whom was and is a major force behind  the station and key person in the establishment of the subsequent nationwide network. One man said, "Absolutely, thank you."—the other uttered "Yes." Both men uttered approval of such a statement. This  woman had articulated the exact technique that had been used in an attempt to silence me. I continued to listen, but heard no one respond to the statement and hosts’ responses.

     Have we become so inured to the psychological violence that is our daily fare, that we have joined the ranks of the blind and the dead as spoken of by the man Jesus? Wake up Southern Oregon! The next time you read about fairness in broadcasting, keep in mind—it works both ways. Remember my experience. The next time it might be you! (end of the original newspaper text)

     This period of censorship lasted well over a year-and-a-half before I was able to return to any of the shows originating from that station.  It came only at the intervention of the rather popular talk show host Bob White,  who stood up against the radio station's policy by allowing my calls to come through.  By the way, he is no longer employed by the station but has become  the Best Selling
author of "Conversations with God, under the name of  NEAL DONALD WALSCH.

     Note: Since this letter was originally published as a newspaper letter, particulars as to identity could not be given at that time. The station in question is KOPE FM. The slandering host was David Masters, son of hypnotist Roy Masters. The other two cohosts handling the call regarding destruction of one's reputation were Roy Masters and  cohost Jesse Peterson. This may answer some of the questions posed by contributors to the Roy Masters Newsgroup who have asked why I post my articles on his group. I must admit, the frequency of my posts on the Roy Masters newsgroup can be traced to my radio experience with KOPE. 

                           Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

Copyright © 1995 by Raymond Karczewski



Re: Disinformation 101

Lisa Heathman wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:07:06 GMT

rk:  NOTE:  Lisa Heathman is my daughter.  She, as well as my wife and I have been under attack by the same libeling Disinformation Agents I have been writing about on the Internet for years.  I am posting her comments on these newsgroups/forums because of the false statements spread over the net concerning the alienation of my children and the three main themes of libel, all of which are traced to disinformation agent ed wilkinson.

rk:  At a picnic at a Grants Pass Oregon park in July of 1997, I told the story to ed wilkinson (the one and only in-person contact I have ever had with wilkinson) of when my children reached the age of majority and they were on their own, Anita and I sold our business and our home in Pacifica California and RETIRED. I sold my business and retired fully in 1982. 

rk:  At the same time at the picnic, I told ed wilkinson (and only ed wilkinson-no other to my recollection) the story of the job applicant, who, during an interview with me while applying for a job with my Private Security Company told me of his experience of shooting a mannequin on the graveyard shift at a major San Francisco Mall while he was employed with a rival company.  Needless to say, I did not hire the man.  I told the story to wilkinson while discussing the state of the security business in recruiting competent people. 

rk:  This was before I learned of wilkinson's ties with the Feds, Intelligence community, and media  although I knew of his family's and his personal cult ties with Roy Masters, Southern Oregon Cult Leader, Mind control expert and Radio talk show personality and Station Owner. 

rk:  Read my experiences with the Roy Masters Family.  See:  Media Unmasked
rk:  There have been three main themes which have fueled an organized campaign to libel me which persist to this very day on these Internet newsgroups/forums.

rk: The libelous smears range from  being a child molestor/abuser, an alcoholic, drug user, sex pervert who has abused, driven away and alienated my children, to shooting mannequins and being forceably retired on a mental disability retirement from the Pacifica Police Department (I was retired on a back injury), to being a welfare drain (my police retirement) and a fugitive criminal on a crime spree wanted in three states.


rk:  My experiences with the Roy Masters family of the smear campaign when I purchased advertising time on their radio station KOPE, were followed by similar techniques attacks when I began to write on the Internet.  It led to my FBI Demand for an Investigation into Government/Media/Intelligence Community sponsored/supported Disinformation campaign launched against myself and the unwary computer using American public. See: http://www.petitiononline.com/RayNita1/petition.html

rk:  ALL THREE THEMES ARISE SOLELY from Former Grants Pass Businessman Ed Wilkinson, formerly of Digital Arts, 880 NE 7th St., Grants Pass, OR 97526,(541) 479-8756, 1-800-446-8756, formerly of dgtlarts@cdsnet.net, (Agent Sir Ed) nope@nospam.com, agent_sir_ed@hotmail.com, former Arms Dealer, former self-professed Journalist, former Member of Oregon Republican Party Central Committee, also known as Mr. Ed, aka Sir Ed, aka Oregon Ed, aka Ray Kargoofy, aka (LIghtColonel Meepzorp-Bazza, SAIC), aka Raymond Karscrewloose, AND NO OTHER.

rk:  With regards to the investigation into the government/media disinformation Internet campaign A COVERUP IS UNDERWAY, from the Federal Government down to the Josephine County Sheriffs office. 


rk:  I stand alone and I wonder about my fellow man and the death of this Constitutional Republic because men have lost their backbone, their courage to stand in the face of Tyranny.

rk:  Following is my daughter Lisa's reply to the contents of the original thread of Disinformation 101. Pay heed to her comments for her words are True.

lh:  This is so disturbing, thinking that a person who taught me to treat everyone else with respect (although I believe there it a caveat), would be quoted with this bullshit.

lh:  The caveat is and always was what is known as the Golden Rule.  You have always lived and instilled in me to treat others as you would want to be treated.

lh:  I still live by that - you have NEVER made the statements attributed to you in my lifetime.  You have strong opinions that some take offense to, but if they knew their English language they cannot possibly take offense.

lh:  Your "offensive" words are "ignorant" = lacking of knowledge (who isn't ignorant of something?) and "imbecile" = fool or idiot.

lh:  Ignorance can lead to imbecility (if nothing is learned) and that offends "whomever" interprets your writings.  But I can attest to the fact that you have never insulted, defamed, libeled or slandered anyone.

rk:  Today, Feb 6th 2005, is the Eighth day of the NATIONAL CONSUMER BOYCOTT giving Americans the opportunity to take back control over their country and their lives through participation. See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch121.html#BOYCOTT


      Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ

rk:  P.S.:  Attach the following SIGNATURE to all of your Internet Messaging.  Let every person you know  understand what is available to him/her in this historical NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION.

rk:  The Voting Booth HASN'T DONE IT.  The Jury Box WON'T DO IT. Don't BET YOUR LIFE on the CARTRIDGE BOX either. 

 TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY -- STOP THE TALK, NOW WALK THE WALK! NATIONAL CONSUMER BOYCOTT TAKE-BACK BEGINS FEBRUARY 1, 2005  Spread The Word Throughout America!  IT'S NOW OR NEVER!!   http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch121.html#BOYCOTT 




Bruce_C._Miller=A9?=" <bm3719@ark.ship.edu>wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:

Date: 9 Feb 2005 05:40:44 -0800

bm:  > Hello k00k. NOTHING you ever do is of any significance, nationwide or otherwise. You're not Jesus, you're name isn't copyrighted, and you're not even a tax-payer. In other words, you are NOBODY. When you die, the only people that will notice are us k00k0l0gists who you ironically hate.

bm:  > Ugh, looks like another boring cut-n-paste job. You sure are slacking on the k00kskr33d lately. You better start putting more effort into it. There are plenty of other k00ks on usenet we could focus on, and we'll move on if you don't start coming up with some new material.

rk:  Actually, your wimpering sounds like a rationalization to me, more like you cowardly disinformation yahoos see "the writings on the wall" and its time for you pack-o-jackals to head for the hills for justice is about to descend on your sorry butts and those who employ you.

rk:  Not to worry.  When I finish up with the State of Oregon and County of Josephine, and demonstrate to the sleeping American Public that One man standing alone in Truth CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE,  I'M COMING AFTER EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU vicious SATANIC yahoos and I'll have the necessary resources to take each of you down financially and every other way for your crimes.   FUNS OVER!!  Time for you cowards to pay the piper.

rk:  The State of Oregon and County of Josephine is already cleaning house and making it easier to reach a settlement by getting rid of the corrupt and criminal public officials (judges and DA) because of their criminal conduct in my case. The work of reforming government has already begun. Where it stops depends on their actions for when they violated my Unalienable Rights I had no choice but to remain in the Spiritual Process for the duration until closure comes and/or Hell Freezes over.

rk:  I'll make it easy for them to bring closure and to satisfy the public taxpayers that all public officials are not corrupt by  accepting a fraction of the money owed me by the Corporate State of Oregon and County of Josephine via their default Commercial Debt.   I'm open to settlement whenever they are. You see, it was never the money.  The commercial liens were the clearest, most effective way to get their attention and truly hold them accountable through their personal pocketbooks via their own unlimited personal commercial liability via Commercial Law.

bm:  > Imagine how lonely your life would be without anyone to remind you that you aren't Jesus?


rk:  Today, Feb 9th 2005, is the Ninth day of the NATIONAL CONSUMER BOYCOTT giving Americans the opportunity to take back control over their country and their lives through participation. See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch121.html#BOYCOTT


      Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ

rk:  P.S.:  Attach the following SIGNATURE to all of your Internet Messaging.  Let every person you know  understand what is available to him/her in this historical NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION.

rk:  The Voting Booth HASN'T DONE IT.  The Jury Box WON'T DO IT. Don't BET YOUR LIFE on the CARTRIDGE BOX either. 

 TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY -- STOP THE TALK, NOW WALK THE WALK! NATIONAL CONSUMER BOYCOTT TAKE-BACK BEGINS FEBRUARY 1, 2005  Spread The Word Throughout America!  IT'S NOW OR NEVER!!   http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch121.html#BOYCOTT 



Disinformation Agents Are Having a Field Day on This Forum Screwing with your minds.

rk:  NOTE:  Since the anonymous Disinformation Agents whom I have already identified (that includes art heffner. He in no way, shape, or design represents me, yet I see the forum ignoramuses are unable to discern that simple fact and are now having him speak for me as my spokesman.  How's that for DUMB!!!) have insinuated themselves into this forum, and are being allowed to do their stuff, they are proving what putty you prideful but undiscerning folks are in their hands. 

rk:  The Disinformation agents are now playing off each other and have the rest of you sucking it up, eating out of their hands.  Look at the tangents the forum has taken since the beginning of this forum. Sorry, but before you have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding the subtleties of what I bring spiritually to this forum, you're going to have to put away the things of Spiritual Childhood and GROW UP.

The following pieces are lengthy.  If you're truly serious about understanding what I bring to you spiritually, you will just have to plod through the material obstructions thrown in your way by Disinformation Agents in your own time and fashion.  Until then, I agree with ZooT_aLLures when he says: "Hey Mouse.......if you're offered Koolaide......don't drink it."  

Read the following lengthy pieces,"Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression",Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation, Or go straight to the Seven Distinct Traits of Disinformation  and perhaps you'll GET IT!!  It'll be well worth your time.


        Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

by David Martin, author of America's Dreyfus Affair ZZZ

----- Forwarded message from Tee <eagle11@classicnet.net> -----
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense,other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques dependsheavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

    1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

    2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit.

    3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors."If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or"hysterical.")

    4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

    5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter,""kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

    6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

    7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

    8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

    9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

   10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth asultimately unknowable.

   11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report the leak.

   12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

   13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

   14. Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

   15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

   16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

   17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Subject: 25 Ways to suppress the truth

From: "Humble Tafari" <wildf...@nospam.net>

The following article was posted on the alt.conspiracy.new-world-order,  and alt.illuminati newsgroups.  It is rather lengthy, but well worth reading. Note the similar tactics used over the years by Tim Hill and the other AFAB bullies operating under a host of  aliases on a number of newsgroups.  rk. 

To Humble Tafari,  Thank you for your contribution to restoring a momentum of balance and Truth to the Internet. We do have a few disinformation yahoos, known as "AFAB Bullies," operating out of the alt.fan.art-bell group. They personify the actions you have described in this piece.  I am reposting this to the groups they have focused their attentions upon.  They need  to read this to understand that the "jig is up.!!!"

                     Ray Karczewski

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

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

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

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

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up.

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

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

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

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

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

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a supportive statement by a Congressman who has not actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?

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

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. "If these exist, the public has not seen them."

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

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

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

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

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

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

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?

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

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

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?

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

"You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a
dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals have ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?

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

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

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

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

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

Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)?

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

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

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up or other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention based on highly suspicious matters which themselves tend to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?

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

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

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane unless you can provide concrete facts to support your contentions of relevance. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up.

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

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in thetopic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are well equipped to fight this tactic.

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

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

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

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.

7) There is also a tendacy to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For
instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.



Disinformation Agents Are Having a Field Day on This Forum Screwing with Your Minds.

2ndmouse Truth Seeker and Devil's Advocate wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:

Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:50 am  


"Hey Mouse.......if you're offered Koolaide......don't drink it."

2m: > I'm not in the habit of gulping down whatever tastes good. And your philosophy smells and looks quite pleasant and tasty.... more reason to fear it.

2m: > so, forgive me if I question, poke, prod, antagonize, attempt to trap or work to tease out the givers true nature.

rk:  Sounds like quite a convoluted and SATANIC tangle of dualistic thought you find yourself plagued with.  Where is your simple nondualistic AWARENESS?

2m: > If art is not one with the body, then answer your own questions, Vizzini.

rk:  Vizzini, Vizzini?  Sorry, there is no Vizzini here, only a Karczewski, a simple man of Truth, a Christ.   Apparently you are spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb, and therefore unable to perceive him. 

rk:  2nd mouse, you're going to have to extricate yourself from your own self-projected intellectual illusions, for you seem to be incapable of transcending your own biases and prejudices; consequently you only reinforce your prideful ignorance. 

rk:  I'm sure that in your present state of BASSACKWARDS SATANIC CONSCIOUSNESS (WHICH YOU SHARE with most civilized people on this planet -- filtering your linear perceptions of life through your civilized SATANIC intellect) you/they are held fast by the dualistic adage that something is both "too good to be true" and  "too true to be good,"and thus are imprisoned by your own unresolved confusion.  Consequently, all fellowship-flocking folks remain inert, prideful and ignorant while surrounding themselves with other codependent ignoramuses who are equally spiritually blind and confused.

rk:  As such, you sing to the choir of habit-ridden, codependent ignoramuses who live their life in the dark, sans the light of Truth, and thus are equally incapable of grasping the subtleties of life which lie beyond the realm of conditioned thought.

rk:  Hell, isn't it?

Feb 10, 2005 12:08 pm   

2m: > you cannot set a map in front of a crowd of illiterates and then tell them the promised land is there just find it, then chastize them when they cannot read.

rk;  My point exactly!!  You are not ready for what I have to give.  Learn to read (exercise your spiritual gift of AWARENESS) so that we are speaking the same language then the obstacles of SATANIC knowledge which pose such a problems simply dissolves and falls away.  Until then you are asking that another dispense divine pearls of understanding mixed in the slop fed to SATANIC  swilling swine.

2m: > start by answering the 9 questions I set in front of art.
is it not hell? yes , it certainlly is, when you refuse to answer questions set before you about the message you expect us all to blindly drink up.

rk:  It is apparent we don't speak the same language even though our words as the same.  I speak Truth, you speak and hear in  SATANIC imagery. Understand the difference in the resonance of each and you will have gained spiritual discernment.  When that occurs you will get what I am saying effortlessly without having to play the Satanic games you play.  Your demand is that I CONDITION and reinforce your knowledgeable technical oriented intellect with familiar concepts while in the realm of the "NONTECHNICAL."

rk:  DO NOT CONSIDER the above to mean that I require BLIND BELIEF on your part. For blind belief is what binds you to your present state of conditioned ignorance in which you revel.

rk:  One must get through the kindergarten stage before one can even begin the odyssey of life and regain his/her legacy of Christ Consciousness, Divine Intelligence.  Climb out of your SATANIC sandbox and get on with it.  I don't do SANDBOX!!

2m: > when you dont answer, we are foced to assume facts and deduct the answers from what you have posted..... so when we assume wrong and paint an incomplete picture, dont have a hissy fit. 

rk:  Hissy fit?  Produce evidence of such a "Hissy Fit."  See what I mean about misperceptions?

2m: > shit ya wont even converse with me about fishing.....

rk:  Don't waste my time and yours, you want fish -- talk to a fisherman.

2m: >  do you fear casual conversation, or do you feel above personal conversation?

rk:  I am guided by and serve nondualistic Truth.  I do not serve the dualistic altar of SATANISM.  I merely mirror it!!

2m: > see, we dont know, and we are forced to form an answer for ourselves when you dont reciprocate.

rk:  There are plenty of Blind Leaders around (the churches are full of them) leading the Blind.  They'll pander to you, stroke you, sedate you, seduce you.  What they won't do is give you the unadulterated Truth, do they? 

rk:  I can't, nor will I give you what you want because in you unsettled state of Dualistic confusion, you have yet to begin the preliminary work of understanding yourself. Only you can do that, otherwise you become a conditioned robot and therefore a human resource to do the bidding of all remote SATANIC AUTHORITY.  Without that spiritual discernment, you will remain where you are, playing such silly games for the sake of proving to yourself how clever you are while you remain in your muck-ridden reality.

2m: > If this philosophy has put you above the need for human communication and interacton, your quite right..... we and thee have absolutely nothing in common, so why persist in presenting the message?

rk:  Why persist in reading them?

          Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Living Christ