Thursday, August 7, 2008




"Carmen Steele"

10 Secrets From A Liberal Insider That Will Let You Win Every Battle With The Enemy!!

Publisher's note:

This work is the product of a series of conversations with a well known Liberal insider who wants this information to be published to encourage other Liberals during the "final struggle against the American System". This work is a distillation of those conversations which took place in 1998 and 1999 in several locations throughout the country.

"Carmen Steele" is a pseudonym for a nationally known figure in Liberal politics. This pseudonym is being used for reasons which will become obvious.

Wordkraft Publishing takes no stand on the words contained herein. We are only serving as the medium for their exposure. Make up your own mind.


One of the best ways to win the day against a conservative and sow confusion is to set up a "Strawman" argument.

A "Strawman" argument is when you attempt to place the blame for the situation on a target that is not really to blame but is easy and convenient.

Example: One of the best strawman arguments of recent times is the one blaming Ronald Reagan for the outrageous deficits of the 1980's. (Of course, we know that it was really the Democrat controlled Congress that opened up the purse, but ... THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT!.) If you keep saying that your strawman is to blame and say it loud enough and long enough most people will begin to accept it as true.


This technique can drive the calmest conservative into a sputtering rage!!

If your foe is arguing about the budget and even mentions something like the military or education (it really doesn't matter) jump on it and start talking about that! If he calls you on it, ask him why he is afraid to talk about it? Start in on him. Don't let him get you back to the original topic. You must control the flow of the debate. You must set the guidelines (in your favor, of course).

If at some point it looks like he is getting to a valid truth, change the topic back to the original subject and accuse him of changing it to create confusion.


One of the classic devices that we "liberals" have used artfully for a long time is the "ad hominum" attack, i.e. "name calling".

One of the current favorite bad names is to call any conservative "mean-spirited". What does it mean? Who knows, who cares? It sounds bad, that's good enough. If your foe even mentions in passing anyone who could be considered a "minority", even it a positive way, that is the time to start calling him "bigot", "racist", "homophobe", "sexist", etc. (you already know the list of hot button words, I'm sure). Just make sure you call him those names with obvious outrage. Try to get the audience involved.

Another good word to call out is "judgemental" If your enemy states an opinion scream back that he or she is "being judgemental". Of course, your calling them "Judgemental" is in itself being judgemental. Don't worry about it. If they point this out, move onto one of the other tactics outlined here.


If, for some reason, your opponent starts to make points (get the truth across) and you are unable to stop him verbally - stop him physically.

Of course, you never go into a public debate alone (See #6). Have a prearranged signal (I always like to use slamming my fist on the table) that tells your flaks to stand up and start yelling. Have them scream at your enemy to stop him from continuing. If he also has supporters in the house have your people start a fistfight. A good brawl will stop the debate and give you the opportunity to later publicly blame the other side for starting the violence.


Most people are impressed by statistics. If it sounds like it comes from an official record it must be true, right? Yeah, sure. Nobody ever goes back and checks the validity of any statistics. So, if you need some figures to support your argument ... make them up! They'll never catch you. I have turned hostile crowds around and utterly destroyed opponents by laying out facts and figures from totally nonexistent "official government reports".

This can also be done with quotes, but it is a bit trickier. Don't quote FDR as saying that "Hitler was a swell guy". Not even the most thickheaded prole would believe that. It should seem at least plausible.

I once quoted President Kennedy as saying that he "wouldn't be upset" if Cuba stayed "Red" as long as U.S. business interests could set up shop again. My opponent went nuts! He demanded to know the source of the quote. I ruffled through my notes and said that it came from "a transcript of an oval office conversation dated 6/3/63 that is publicly available at the Kennedy Library." Then I laughed at him and suggested that he "do his homework". The crowd loved it and the debate was, for all intents and purposes, over. Of course, JFK never said any such thing, but because he was a Capitalist he might have said it.


You must think like a wolf. Be voracious. Be clever. Be bloodthirsty and never hunt alone.
Wolves hunt and kill in packs. So must you hunt and kill. If you are in a public debate with a Conservative (or anyone not a loyal Comrade) stack the house with likeminded brothers and sisters. They can give you moral support and can be used as an offensive weapon or in your defense if things go badly (see #4).

Rehearse your people. Drill them and then use them! The sheep in the crowd won't catch on and you can mobilize the fools sitting on the fence into jumping onto your side with verbal support and hopefully some cash.


Most people lack self-confidence. They doubt themselves. They are insecure in their own intelligence and strength. They are afraid most of the time. If they don't understand something they assume it is their fault. Use this doubt and fear against them.

There is an old adage that goes, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your footwork, baffle 'em with your bullshit".

If you are asked a direct question, answer it with another question. When you ask that a question make it so convoluted and complex that no sensible answer can be made. Or, if the fool tries to answer it, you can pick it apart by saying that his answer is just bureaucratic gobbledygook and just another example of the Establishment trying to confuse the People with lies and obfuscation.

Asking "loaded" questions is an excellent disruptive ploy. With a "loaded" question no matter what answer your enemy gives he looks bad. "When did you stop beating your wife?", "How much longer must the people of this country put up with a racist, sexist (or whatever) government and Society?" "Don't people have a right to decent, affordable housing?" [ Technically and legally, of course, there is no such right.] If the fool answers this last question "yes" then hammer him as to why there is so much poor, substandard housing and what have you done with all the money you have taken from the workers?. If he answers "no" (the correct and true reply) Call him a heartless, racist and mean spirited bastard. Either way you've got him by the nuts.


As stated in #7, "Most people lack self-confidence". One facet of this is that they can't stand being laughed at. It hurts them and confuses them. Good! It also creates a negative public image of them. Even better!

In 1948 Thomas E. Dewey was the Republican candidate for President. He was the heavy favorite to defeat Harry Truman. He was very able and qualified, but he was the enemy.

Dewey had a small mustache and had a rather stiff and formal demeanor. One night, late in the campaign, a nationally broadcast radio commentator said that Dewey reminded him of the little statue of the groom that sits on top of a wedding cake. The image that it created in the Public's mind was so absurd that, virtually overnight, Dewey's poll numbers plummeted and Truman blew him away in the election. People just could not vote for anyone who made them laugh every time they saw his face.

The same type of thing happened with Dan Quayle. Our partners in the Press have destroyed the political career of Mr. Quayle. They have made him, through disinformation and/or complete fabrication, a national laughingstock.

Remember the "potatoe" incident? Quayle was ridiculed mercilessly for ostensibly misspelling the word "potato" as "potatoe". Of course, either spelling is correct, but who cares?

Another time the media quoted Quayle as speaking at a United Negro College Fund banquet and mangling their motto by saying "It is a terrible thing to lose one's mind". The nation roared. The only thing that the masses of sheep never noticed or were never told was that it was actually Al Gore (our VP) who said it and not Dan Quayle. No videotape of this gaffe ever made it on air. Protests were actively ignored and quashed so that the truth never got out.

(An aside: Al Gore is a problem for us. He looks good and follows orders, but he is one stupid son of a bitch. That makes him dangerous.)

In a public debate, laugh at your opponent. Ridicule his looks, his clothes or whatever is obvious. Try to make him appear ludicrous to the audience. The Pie throwers are an inspired lot. They understand the power of an absurd image.

If you can get the crowd to laugh at the enemy he is neutralized - no matter who he is. No matter how qualified or knowledgeable he is. He is dog meat.


In the last 25 years the United States has fallen in love with the "Victim".

The best way to get something for nothing has become to say that you are a "Victim". Of course, given that you are a "Victim" it logically follows that something or someone is the denoted "Victimizer" For our purposes it is better that the Victimizer be an identifiable person or group. "Somethings" are harder to effectively vilify and things don't have assets that can be easily extorted in litigation.

Claiming Victim status in a debate makes it difficult for any opponent to rebut your argument. Any attack can then be painted as being: 1. Blaming the Victim 2. Calling them "Stupid" or "Heartless" or using the timeless cliche, "You just don't get it." 3. "the Establishment oppressing the poor." The list of ploys is well known.

Victimhood also sways Public Opinion. The American sheep will believe anything, no matter how crazy, if the person saying it is a self-proclaimed Victim.

An example: Our President Clinton who, while a highly disciplined activist and apparatchik, just can't keep his dick in his pants. His poll numbers rose when he claimed that he was a Victim and therefore not to be blamed for his actions. His story was that his behavior was to be excused because his Mother and Grandmother loved him too deeply and fought over him. OK, sure.
No matter how you look at it his claim is pure nonsense, but that is the beauty of being a Victim. Nonsense is accepted as Sense. Illogic is accepted as Logic. Lies are accepted as Truth.

You see, to disagree with the claims of a Victim is seen as cruel, mean spirited and "extremist hate speech".

Victimhood hands you a very broad and heavily tarred brush with which to paint your enemy.

Finding your Victimhood is a snap. Quite literally, you can use anything about you that anyone might not like; Sex, Age, Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Political Affiliation, Level of education, Size, Ethnicity, Health Status, Financial Well-being, What you drive (or don't drive), the food you eat. You get the idea. Pick a card, any card. Why you are a Victim is unimportant, only your status as a Victim carries weight.

Remember: Everything is Political, use Everything.


State conjecture as fact. Blur the line between opinion and truth. The best example of this I have ever seen is the furor over "Global Warming".

Incredible gains in spreading centralized control over many aspects of Society have come as a result of our fear mongering about "Global Warming".

Hard, objective science shows that there is zero evidence of any kind of "Global Warming". The facts actually point to a mild cooling over the last 300 years. These are the facts, but the operative reality is that "Global Warming is a horrible crisis that must be dealt with".

Our people in the Government and Media have promulgated the crisis using partial data, psuedoscientists offering half-baked opinions as hard truth and "What If..." terrorism. Sheep believe it all.

The "Ozone Hole" is another good example of conjecture as fact. There is no hole and never has been. The ozone layer over the polar regions is naturally thinner than elsewhere around the planet. Ever since science discovered this layer (in the 1950's) it has been noted that the thickness of the layer fluctuates from year to year. There has never been a complete disappearance of the layer... No "Hole". However, in the newspapers there is a hole. On TV there is a hole. In the halls of Government there is a hole. Therefore, people believe that there is a hole. Scare tactics are very effective. Ain't it great?

To be able to wield the power of the "scare tactic" you must become proficient and comfortable at stating half-truths, junk science, confusing statistics and flat-out lies as Gospel Truth.

It is said that "The Truth will set you free". Well, it is up to you to determine what the "Truth" is. Done well, it will set us all on the road to Power and Domination over the masses of sheep in this country.


The objective in any argument with the enemy is not to win, but to make your enemy give up. It is unimportant if you convert him to your side. Anyone who would argue with you is probably pretty well grounded and not easily fooled. So, what you want to do is to make him feel that it is useless to argue with you. That he is powerless against you.

You already know (or should know) that the struggle is not about "right" or "wrong" but about getting the Power. The best way to do this is to convince people that resistance is useless - that they just can't win. Who cares what they believe as long as they don't resist our power. True Believers will be dealt with later. They are merely our "Brownshirts".

If there is an audience to the debate all you have to do is create as much confusion, doubt and hopelessness as possible in the mind of the listener. If someone is wasting time actually listening to the debate it usually means that he or she is not sure which side to believe. That is all you need. Feed that confusion. Proclaim that their doubt is good because it shows that they are "open minded". Flattery will get you everywhere. Because you are not restricted by reason and truth you can easily sway these wafflers to your argument.

Use these 10 secrets to sow confusion and frustration in your enemy. Don't let truth get in the way. It is, more often than not, also your enemy. If you're reading this you are already committed to the struggle and know that.

It doesn't matter what you call yourself- "Liberal", "Progressive", "Democrat", "Socialist", etc., they are all the same now anyway, right?

As a sidenote: I would avoid identifying yourself as a "Communist". It still has a lot of negative connotations in many people's minds, although we are making progress on that front too. After all, most sheep believe that Gorbachev brought Democracy to Russia. Of course, the truth is that he fought it all the way until he caved in to Boris Yeltsin. In time, both of them will have to answer for their actions. Until then, use the false image to your advantage.

Never forget that the ultimate goal is Total Power. Power to be used to enrich ourselves and to destroy any and all opposition.

The ends truly do justify the means. You must accept that, embrace that and let it set you free.

Knowledge is not power. If it were, librarians would rule the world. No, "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun" said Chairman Mao. He was right, but now our "guns" must be the Press, the elected offical and our committed activists. In time (not all that far off) we will hold all the guns and then the rest is just mopping up.

The End

Wordkraft Publishing
copyright 2000

Marrying Up (Gringos marrying 3rd World women)

Marrying Up

Whole Nuther Worlds (or Maybe Nuthers Worlds)

Fred on Everything

June 25, 2008

In countries of the Third World, you often find American men in their fifties or sixties who have wives twenty or twenty-five years younger. In my considerable experience, they seem happy together. However, the arrangement upsets people back in the US. Why, I wonder?

A couple of upsettances are common. The first, from feminists, holds that the man is exploiting the woman sexually (a flattering thought to a man in his sixties; more likely, she wishes he were) or that he wants a docile and pliable woman. The view springs from the common notion among American women that a female who isn’t intolerable isn’t really a man. I suggest that if feminists married more Chinese women, they would learn a great deal about docility and where it isn’t. But, as I have often said, feminists hold women in much more contempt than do men.

The second upsettance, from both men and women Stateside, is that the wife is a brazen-clawed gold-digger. We are left, I suppose, with a docile, pliable brazen-clawed…ah, never mind.

It is perhaps worth noting that marriage has always had a large element of self-seeking, and that women, when they have not actually sold sex, have at least bartered it. This practice is hotly denied, and as hotly pursued.

Take identical twin brothers, introduce one as a recent graduate of Harvard Medical, and the other as a bus driver, and compare their amatory successes. There will be no comparison. Give me a Ferrari and money enough to leave hundred-dollar tips for a beer, and women will line up for blocks outside my door, though I have the appeal of a tree fungus. And while sex is often associated with marriage, not always accurately, it’s far cheaper to rent than buy. Only the crazy marry for it.

What usually happens is that a guy of, say, sixty arrives in Bangkok. Or Manila, Panama, Mexico, Saigon…. He’s looking at ten or fifteen years, and knows it. He has enough money to live well on the local economy. He doesn’t have a whole lot more.

For a young man, such places are candy stores. An old guy has done that, especially the kind of old guy you find in the Third World. Running the bars gets old. He’s looking more to warmth, to not coming home every night to an empty apartment, to having someone to hang outwith in the day. He’ll find buddies around town, but it’s different.

Now, there is a curious social convention regarding guys in the later stages of life. A man of fifty is a silvering figure of masculinity but, somewhere around sixty, he becomes in the public mind a doddering idiot. The phrase “little old man” comes into play. He is either a dirty old man (implying that he has the instincts of all males from the age of fifteen) or a manipulable dunderhead subject to the wiles of any bit of fluff. How pitiable.

Actually he is much more likely to be a bush pilot out of Alaska or ex-Special Forces or a veteran of thirty years in the oil business in the Pacific. Dimwits and weak sisters don’t often show up single in such places. They’ve known the girls and the places where you find girls for decades, some going as far back as BC Street in Koza. They know what is what, and are unlikely to get flensed.

Here it is important to get beyond the often unconscious but powerful condescension that so many have toward Third-Worlders. This attitude urges that women (and men, but we are not here interested in men) in most of the world are ignorant if not illiterate, uncouth and, not to put too fine a point on it, not very bright. This view doesn’t hold up well to experience.

Women are naturally classy unless, like so many American women, they have consciously appropriated the manners of cattle rustlers, running backs, and rabid badgers as an intensely sought ideological goal. In most places women dress well if they possibly can, and behave well. Many are intelligent, which is more important than formal education in being good company. They generally are just plain good people. And they are far tougher and more self-reliant than are cosseted editresses in New York.

So things look pretty good from the guy’s point of view.

From the woman’s point of view, American (and in general First World) men also look pretty good. The cold fact is that American men treat women well. In a lot of countries, the men are—I’m trying to think of a polite euphemism for “real dickheads”; one will come to me in a moment. They beat their wives, cheat on them, treat them like chattels. American men don’t. (There are exceptions to all of this, of course, but they are exceptions.) A gringo wants his wife to be part of his life. He will go to dinner with her, take her desires into account, and treat her as an equal. Koreans won’t.

This is a novel concept in many places but, I promise, it flies really well.

Often the woman will have a kid or two attached, maybe from an earlier marriage or maybe just accidents. Now, in the US certain people get huffy about--oh, the thought!—illegitimate children. How déclassé and other French words. I note that American women are as sexually active as any other. They just believe in abortion more. At any rate, the gringo often figures, hey, they’re kids. Let’s raise them. It’s what you do with kids.

This too goes over really well.

He figures if he’s going to have a girlfriend, or wife, he might as well get a pretty young one. Too young means boring, but for a guy of sixty, thirty-five or forty is young, and not boring. So that’s what he gets. American women hate this like poison, which keeps me awake at night.

For the man, she’s great company, nice looking, usually cooks well and takes care of the house. For her, he’s a nice guy, treats her like a human being, makes sure the kids go to good schools, and provides much-needed security. They actually like each other, which can add a lot to a marriage.

Usually he marries her, if he does, because when he croaks he wants her to have legal or financial benefits of one sort or another. She of course knows this will happen, but so what? The arrangement differs in no obvious way from an American woman’s expectation of getting the life insurance. They appreciate each other. The kids see a dentist, the woman doesn’t have to work in some godforsaken shoe factory, and the guy has a life worth living.

You may not believe me. But I know a lot of these men. None of them would ever, under any circumstances, change.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Água mineral feita a partir do mar chega aos EUA

Água mineral feita a partir do mar chega aos EUA

Manuela Rahal, de São Paulo (Valor)

Moradores de Miami, na Flórida (EUA), poderão a partir do próximo mês entrar em lojas de conveniência da cidade e levar pra casa uma nova garrafa de água mineral, a H2Ocean. Seria apenas mais uma marca no mercado, não fosse por um detalhe: a H2Ocean é feita a partir da água do mar, com aplicação da nanotecnologia. E mais. O processo foi desenvolvido por brasileiros.

A H2Ocean nasceu da experiência de dois cientistas, que começaram a desenvolver a tecnologia de controle de minerais em água dessalinizada. Isso ocorreu há dez anos. Em seguida, somaram-se à dupla outros dois sócios. Em 2003, eles conseguiram a patente do processo e passaram a bater de porta em porta para tentar comercializar a água. "Ao longo de dez anos, foram investidos cerca de US$ 2 milhões na companhia", diz Rolando Viviani, gerente de marketing da H2Ocean. Segundo ele, todas as pesquisas foram feitas com recursos próprios dos quatro sócios. Seus nomes, por enquanto, são mantidos em sigilo.

No início, o objetivo da H2Ocean era vender a água "nanotecnológica" no Brasil. A empresa alega ter procurado a Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa) em 2006 para realizar o pedido de registro do engarrafamento do produto. A resposta teria sido a de que não há legislação específica para que esse tipo de água seja vendido no país por conta da sua fonte: o mar. Procurada, a Anvisa informou que a H2Ocean nunca entrou com um pedido de registro. A empresa, entretanto, enviou ao Valor fac-símile da página da Anvisa na internet em que aparece o número do processo do registro e do protocolo, em nome de Aquamare Beneficiadora e Distribuidora de Água. A data de entrada é de outubro de 2006 e o pedido foi negado em março do ano passado.

Em dezembro, a mesma Aquamare fez uma segunda tentativa, enviando uma carta à Anvisa em que pedia esclarecimentos sobre o que fazer para obter o registro. A resposta veio quatro meses depois, com a indicação de que a empresa deveria "importar" uma legislação sobre o assunto.
Ao Valor, a Anvisa também informou que "a empresa interessada na produção (...) de água dessalinizada deve apresentar, preferencialmente por intermédio de uma associação, proposta de regulamentação para avaliação pela Anvisa".

As dificuldades para se obter o registro no Brasil levaram a H2Ocean a mudar de estratégia. A empresa continua interessada em obter a aprovação da Anvisa, mas decidiu priorizar a busca por novos mercados. A opção foi pelos EUA. "O registro da empresa saiu em três horas e a água foi analisada em 15 dias. Nos EUA, conseguimos resolver em três meses tudo o que não conseguimos aqui em quatro anos", afirma Viviani. O Valor, porém, não teve acesso ao registro obtido no exterior.

A venda da H2Ocean começa nos Estados Unidos em agosto, em três estados: além da Flórida, Nova Jérsei e Atlanta. Foram embarcados oito contêineres do produto, feito inicialmente na fábrica de Bertioga, litoral sul de São Paulo. A unidade poderá ser desativada em breve. A produção deve ser transferida para os EUA no fim deste ano.

A nanotecnologia foi o instrumento utilizado pela H2Ocean para transformar a água do mar em água mineral dessalinizada. A água dos oceanos é rica em micro e macro nutrientes, como o boro, o cromo e o germânio - elementos dos quais o corpo humano necessita, em pequenas doses. Com a nanotecnologia, a H2Ocean conseguiu, a partir da água recolhida em alto mar, retirar o sal e manter grande parte dos minerais.

Para chegar a esse resultado, os cientistas criaram um filtro com nanotecnologia aplicada, o nanofiltro. O processo inicial é o mesmo que se faz desde a década de 1940: a dessalinização. Depois de retirado o sal, restam duas opções, segundo Viviani: "Ou todos os minerais são retirados da água ou ela continua salgada". Com uma sequência de nanofiltragens, a H2Ocean conseguiu manter 63 dos 86 minerais contidos na composição inicial. Surgiu a água do mar mineral.

Para saber se o resultado é bom, o brasileiro vai ter de esperar. Ou passar em alguma "deli" na próxima viagem à Disney.