I have a question for women.  Suppose someone was selling a product which was known to accelerate the aging process of the skin, would you use it?  Suppose it was clinically proven to accelerate the aging process?  Does that make it sound more appealing?  Well, what if frequent use starting in your 20′s would allow you to look 30 by the time you were 25, 40 by the time you were 30, and 60 by the time you were 40?  What if it was clinically proven to put you at risk of contracting some form of cancer?  What if older women who have been using the product for some time said they regretted using it and warned you against using it?  What if identical twins were found where one used the product and the other did not, and the user looked 20 or 30 years older than the non-user?  Does it sound good yet?  Do you want it? 

If yes then there is no need to continue reading.

If no, then my next question is WHY ARE YOU TANNING?  Because tanning does all of these things.

Mainly it is white women who tan, but there are also a few Americanized Asians who engage in this behavior.  When I was living in Texas it was just a few women here and there who tanned, but when I moved to Georgia I was shocked by how prevalent it is here.  In my state it appears to be the norm rather than the exception, and while I recognize that it is not so prevalent everywhere, it is indeed a national problem given that white women have the highest rate for contracting melenoma of any group in the US.  Of course it’s not just the white women here who do it, but many in Europe as well, which to me indicates that it is a racial problem.

I do not understand the purpose of this tanning.  It does not do a thing to improve a woman’s looks.  At best the tanned woman looks silly, but many of them just look revolting.

Ridiculous:

Revolting:

What I don’t understand is why so many younger women take up the habit of tanning, when all they need to do is look at women that are 5 or 10 years older to see the deliterous affects of it graphically illustrated.  My guess is that when they see a 25 year old woman who looks 30 or a 30 year old woman who looks 40, then they assume that the women are 30 and 40 respectively.  Or it may be that they assume that such wanton aging is natural regardless of lifestyle, or they may simply not think at all.  My guess is that the latter is responsible.

Back in 2010 I was working in retail, and one day I was tasked with generating a bridal list for some woman and her friends.  When I looked at the women I assumed that their ages were somewhere in the middle between my mother and I.  At the time I was 29, and my mom was in her early 50′s.  The women had age lines on their faces, thin and leathery skin, and a somewhat mottled texture to their skin reminscent of the early stages of liver spots.  I assumed that perhaps they were about 45, and I was thinking, “awfully late to be getting married.”  But when I looked at the woman’s drivers license I found that she was also 29.  How sad.  It was evident that she was tanning because at the time she was tanned.  Why do that?

Yesterday I saw a few severely tanned women, which is what inspired me to write this article.  I saw a girl studying in subway who was probably in her upper teens, and although she had caucasoid features and medium tone hair, she was darker than the average Mexican, and just as dark as many black people.  Of course it her coloring was uneven and she had a rather roasted or baked look to her so I was able to ascertain that it was not her normal pigmentation, if the hair and facial structure had not been enough of a giveaway.  Shortly after seeing her a woman came out of the bathroom with two little girls.  The woman was also tanned, and the two children were sunburned with skin that was unevenly reddened. 

Of course the children cannot be held responsible for their behavior in this regard, because they are not thinking about things like tanning or long term consequences of sun damage.  When I was a kid I was not thinking about what the sun was doing to my skin or eyes, I was just thinking that I wanted to eat, run around, and play.  I was more worried about how I would convince my parents to get me the latest Super Soaker, or how I was going to watch as many cartoons as possible.  Being sensible is a learned behavior.  If the parents don’t model sensible behavior then the children are going to have to learn the hard way, which means experiencing negative consequences and putting 2 and 2 together as a result.  Still, this parent should have had the sense to put sunscreen on her kids, for goodness sake.  The mother has no sense, so the children will probably also grow up to have no sense.

I do not understand where this culture of tanning comes from.  It’s not based on any classical cultures or traditional values.

Egypt:

Minoans (ancient Crete):

Etruscans (Italy, pre-Roman):

Roman:

Medieval Europe:

India:

China:

Japan:

It seems that the position among classic cultures was that tanning (at least for women) was base and vulgar, and actually that is a position which I share.  This culture of tanning that we have today makes no sense.  My guess is that it is somehow related to cultural Marxism, and the whole idea that white people need to be ashamed of being white, as there are very few other light skinned peoples who will engage in that behavior.  Asian women who have been heavily de-cultured will do it sometimes, and when they do it is just as ridiculous and deliterious as when white women do it.

When I was a kid I didn’t care about putting on sunscreen or proteting my skin or eyes.  I wasn’t trying to make myself look a certain way, I just didn’t think about those things because I had other concerns and I still had a childlike and not fully developed mind.  After lots of pain + observation of how sustained exposure to the sun affects people, I decided that it was time to use sunscreen if I am going to be outside during the day for any prolonged amount of time, and to protect my eyes with sunglasses as well.  As a result I am often mistaken for being about five or six years younger than I actually am.  In addition, because of my generous use of sunglasses I have never needed to utilize corrective eyeware. 

When I was in my late teens and early 20′s I had some people who suggested I should tan, but I never saw the need for it.  Doing something because other people are doing it is a stupid reason to do anything.  Having darker skin can make one look more defined, but hitting the gym on a frequent basis will actually make one more defined and fit.  Personally, I would rather build up my body than bake it.

That being said, I understand that there are some women who like to spend a lot of time outside engaging in physical activity, and that is good and respectable, but with the advent of sunscreen tanning has been reduced to an affectation rather than a necessary consequence of spending time outside. 

There are basically three types of people who are pro-”Palestinian” or anti-Israel, and they are Muslims, liberals, and white supremacists.  I recently had the pleasure of arguing with anti-Israel people from all three groups, and regardless of what they say, when it comes down to it their motives are based on nothing more than anti-Jewish bias.

They talk about human rights violations in Israel, but even if all of the worst allegations are true, they still do not approach the depredations which occur in countries like Syria and Egypt.  The anti-Israel crowd never has anything to say about that. 

They talk about Christians being persecuted in Israel, but the best examples of Christian persecution I have seen were two videos on youtube of what appeared to be members of the ultra-orthodox community making fun of some people, but whatever happened to prompt it was left out of the videos.  We don’t even know if any actual Christians were involved, and even if there were, Christians also get made fun of in the US, and getting made fun of occasionally is not persecution unless it is followed by some type of action.  That being said, Christians are very badly persecuted in Muslim countries.  Egypt, which has the largest Christian population of any country in the Middle East and North Africa has one of the most abysmal track records for treatement of Christians.  Here is what Christians have to go through in Egypt:

1. The children are all forced to go to Islamic schools and memorize Koran verses.

2. They are subject to random acts of violence and killings.

3. Some are forces to literally live in garbage (Zebbaleen community).

4. They are subject to random forced conversions, and women are kidnapped and forced to marry Muslims.

5. They have to get permission from the government to build new churches, previously they could not build a new church or repair existing churches.

It is amazing that there are any Christians left at all in Egypt, but it is that sort of institutional persecution which transformed Egypt from a Christian country to an Islamic pesthole, not a massive population replacement like the black supremacists think.

Last time I checked, none of these restrictions or institutionalized forms of persecution applied to Christians in Israel.  Israel has some of the most famous and oldest churches in the world, like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Christians in Jerusalem are allowed to reenact the crucifiction of Jesus.  What Muslim country would allow that?

On the other hand, the “Palestinians” Muslims used the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as a hideout to shoot at Jewish soldiers from.  To the Muslims nothing belonging to Christians is hsacred or deserving of respect.  They could not care less if a church is damaged.  Well, actually they want churches to be damaged, which is why they often damage them on purpose and do not allow the Christians to repair them.  Israel is the only thing in that region bringing civility and humane behavior. 

When it comes specifically to Muslims, there are some who will just state openly that they hate Jews and want them all to die.  Typically those are Saudis, but most that I see will stop at insisting that they are only anti-Israel.  Of course, Israel is the Jewish country, so one cannot logically be anti-Israel without being anti-Jewish.  The Muslims talk out of both sides of their mouths.  On the one hand they insist that they are all Muslims, or all Arabs, and that they are all the same, or that they are one people.  They use this argument to portray themselves as a persecuted people, and to insist that an attack on any of them is an attack on all of them.  But when it comes to Israel, they suddenly insist that the Palestinians are a unique people who need to be protected, and that their unique culture has a right to exist.

What happened to all Arabo-Muslims being one people?  If they are one people then the “Palestinians” should be able to fit in anywhere, right?  They are all one people when it suits their needs, or many separate and unique peoples when the circumstances call for it.  They are whatever suits their agenda.  Of course in real life they used to be many different peoples prior to Islam, but whether they can still be considered such today is dubious at best due to the cultural hegemony of Islam.  To find differences among them today requires some serious hair-splitting.  I suppose that “Palestinians” are a separate people from Jordanians in the same way that people from Georgia and Tennessee are separate peoples, but those are small hair-splitting differences which no rational person would take under serious consideration.

The claims about being concerned over homelands and people being in their homeland also ring false.  If Muslims were so concerned about everyone being in their traditional homeland then they would not be immigrating to infidel countries in droves as they do.  That being said, Israel is the homeland of the Jews, not the “Palestinians.”  The Christian “Palestinians” do not try to trace their origins back to the Caananites or the Jews, they trace it back to Arabs (real Arabs from SA), or in some cases to the Greeks.  Only Muslim “Palestinians” try to trace their origins back to the Caananites, and there is no basis for it.  Aside from the Lebanese, all of the other Caananite people are gone.  The Lebanes are descended from the Phoenicians, or at least some of them are, and those people existed outside of the traditional territory of Israel.  As for the others, we do not see Caananites mentioned very frequently in the Bible after time of King David, and from then on they are mentioned with decreasing frequency, indicating that they either assimilated or were wiped out.  The last mention of the Phillistines in the Bible can be found in Zechariah, and it is more of an aside. 

It was the Romans who created the concept of Palestine.  Prior to that the Romans did not recognize the existence of any Caananite peoples.  The province of Judaea included both Jews and Samaritans.  There were no enclaves of other groups present:

After the final Jewish rebellion the Romans destroyed the temple of God in Jerusalem and eradicated all vestiges of Jewish political authority in the Jewish homeland.  Many Jews were forced into exile, and in mockery of the Jews the Romans renamed the area “Palestine” after the ancient enemy of the Jews (the Phillistines).  However, there continued to be a Jewish presence in the area even after the revolt and the diaspora, and such immigration as there was tended to be composed of Greeks and Romans, not Arabs.  This is why Christian “Palestinians” identify as either Arab or Greek, not as Philistines.  Muslims try to identify as Philistines because they have a vested interest in legitimizing their presence in the land, and deligitimizing the presence of the Jews, who actually have more Caananite blood in them than the “Palestinians” do.

Today there are two major semitic ethnicities in the Middle East today, there are the monolithic Arab culture, and the Jews.  The Jews are the only semitic culture to survive Islam, and that is why the Islamic world is focused on them so intently.  It has nothing to do with human rights violations, of which they themselves are the experts in.  It has nothing to do with Israel being aggressive.  All one has to do is look at a map to see who the aggressor is:

Aggressive cultures expand geographically, and often subject the native people to depredations designed to accelerate assimilation and/or destruction of the native culture.  There is persecution of religious and/or ethnic minorities in the majority of those countries.  Of course Muslims argue that the Jews started the conflict in Israel, but the Jews have nothing to do with the conflict between Pakistan and India, the Chechnyans and Russians, the North Sudanese vs. the Christian and polytheistic South Sudanese, the persecution of Christians in Egypt or Nigeria, the conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia, the trouble in the Balkans, or the Armenian genocide in Turkey.  The common element here is Islam.  Every time Islam runs up against non-Islam there is a conflict, so the rational person who looks at this issue will recognize the common denominator as the primary factor in all these conflicts. 

If Israel wanted to wipe out the “Palestinians” they could do so in a day, if the “Palestinians” could wipe out Israel they would do it in a day.  As it is they use what little technology they have to cause as much damage as they can. 

To anyone who thinks that the two state solution will solve the problems for Israel, I have to say that you are severely mistaken.  There are already a good many Arab-Muslim countries in the area, and they have not done a thing to make the Middle East more sane or peaceful.  Adding one more is not going to increase the sanity or peace in any way, in fact it will probably embolden the Muslims to act even more aggressively since they will have one more victory to boast of.  The best thing is for Israel to start deporting those people to other Muslim countries, and to continue to move in Jewish settlers until all parts of their homeland are majority Jewish.  If anything they should deal with the Muslims more severely.