Although Sun Tzu said never to allow your enemies to see your emotions (which in my case would be the left), I am going to go out on a limb here discuss mine because I believe that in this case it will do more good than harm.  I have been extremely demoralized for the last few weeks regarding the next election. 

Contrary to the stereotypes liberals have about conservatives, I actually do not watch Fox News, and I very seldom listen to talk radio.  I actually get most of my news from Yahoo, which has it’s own team of journalists but also takes articles from sources such as the NYT, Associated Press, CNN, ABC, and Time.  All of which of course are 100% liberal, as is the Yahoo team.  Contrary to what liberals think, true conservatives who read he libral media will only become more incensed and cling to ther own side as a reaction.  This is why some conservatives choose to follow only conservative sources, such as there are, because they no longer have patience for left wing news/propaganda.  But I digress.

The point is I was reading the left wing news, and it demoralized me.  They were putting out articles predicting wins for Obama, and showing how he was more popular and more well liked than Romney among a vareity of groups, and in general.  Then I saw an article about how Eric Holder was acquitted and I just tossed up my hands in frustration and exasperation.

I said, “We don’t have a country any more, this is it.”  I lost my will to struggle, and I considered never voting again.  It reminded me of a wrestling match I had years ago with one of my friends.  When I was younger I used to wrestle, and I was fairly decent at it.  When I wrestled with this guy I usually beat him, because I was better trained and physically stronger, but one day I was feeling particularly tired physically, and I was also depressed about something (probably job related).  The result was that I did not have the energy to defeat him, but I was still struggling and using such energy as I had. 

It was not long before he had an arm around my neck and was constricting my air flow.  I could not get away, and the more I struggled the harder he constricted, and it became progressively more difficult to struggle because as I exerted myself my need for oxygen rose but my ability to get it diminished.  So I just gave up and let him strangle me.  I figure whatever happened would happen, and I had no energy or will power left. My memory of what exacty happened is hazy, but basically what happened was I nearly lost consciousness and went limp, and my friend ended up loosening his grip so I was able to get free.  Obviously I didn’t die because I’m here now.

But that pretty much described my feelings for much of the week.  I thought that perhaps we should just give up and stop fighting the liberals since they are going to win anyways.  I figured that it was time to hunker down, isolate ourselves as much as possible, and wait for the blow to fall.  Then when it does fall we could at least make sure the nail is upside down so that they will strike down on a point rather than a dull flat head.  Anyone who is a conservative will know what I mean by that. 

I was thinking these things, but then an idea occured to me.  This is how the left wants us to feel.  They want us to think it’s hopeless so that we will stay out of politics and let them run wild.  They are still afraid of us, which means that we still have some power.  I am thinking that their articles are bogus when they talk about how most of the people in the country are pro-Obama.  All one needs to do is look at the comments beneath the articles to see the overwhelming hostility the readers feel towards Obama and his party. 

However, Yahoo is right about one thing.  Most of us are not excited about Romney, and most of us do not relate to him.  Of course, their theories on why that is and what the results will be are wrong.  We don’t have difficulty relating to the Republicans because they are “rich” and we are classist, and our lack of ability to relate to them will not stop us from voting.  We don’t relate to Romney and many of the Republicans because they do not embody our values.  A far as the religious right is concerned, they do not share our values and beliefs, but they are still closer to us than the Democrats, which most of us firmly believe is the party of Satan.  Most of us on the right in general (secular or religious) are not impressed with their economic policies, which will still not roll back the debt, or their commitment and ability to turn back the disastrous changes made by Obama and his lackeys.  That being said, many of us will still vote just because we want Obama gone.

I will admit, there are good arguments on both sides for voting and for not voting, but for my part I have decided I will vote.  Here is why: Immigration.

If we do not do something to stem the tide of immigration from Mexico and other 3rd world countries then we will not have a country left.  I have seen lots of articles online where the liberal media is whining about Republican attempts to curtail immigration from Mexico, and to require voters to show some type of government picture ID.  Of course we know that part of the reason they are complaining is because they like to receive votes from illegal aliens, but they also want to ensure that Mexicans and other 3rd world immigrants continue to vote because they typically vote Democrat.  That is also part of the reason why they continually fight against efforts to curtail immigration from Mexico and deport illegals.

According to this liberal news article I read two out of every three “Latinos” votes for the Democrats.

That means that as their numbers continue to grow it will become progressively more difficult for Republicans to win.  Furthermore, if Obama wins again and maintains the majority in the Senate, we can expect them to fling open the borders for more immigration.  Once they get enough Mexicans in the US, they will no longer have any need to appeal Independants or fence sitters. 

The article mentions that Republicans might try to appeal to Mexicans on the grounds that they are morally conservative, but I believe that they will fail in that regard.  Mexicans may be anti-gay and anti-abortion, but 70% of documented Mexican immigrants are on welfare.  In other words, the majority of them come here to suck on the tit.  It also means that a large portion of their population is incapable of nation-building.  All one needs to do to see this illustrated is to look at the sorry shape their own country is in.  If enough of them come here then the US will just be another Mexico, pollution, crowding, poor education, and all. 

I’m really serious guys.  If we don’t get out and vote for the Republicans, then whatever ideological point we are trying to make by not voting will bear no fruits as we will never be able to get in another Republican no matter how much they reform.  We will become a persecuted and hated minority in our own country.  At that point our votes will truly be irrelevant, and the only thing left for us to do will be to either flee the country that our ancestors created, or to hunker down and flip the nail over.  Think about it.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/latino-population-growth-could-impact-iowa-180859929–election.html?bcmt=1347654143059-a958ae71-bf4d-4cc5-bc50-1fbe6178d814&bcmt_s=u#ugccmt-container-b

China is probably the best example of succesful brainwashing on a mass scale.  At present the people there are protesting against Japan on a mass scale over a tiny group of islands.  The islands are actually Japanese territory, but the Japanese government has officially bought them from a private owner recently, and this has inflamed people in China, including the Chinese government.

I have one question.  What is the use of the islands?  Because the article I read described them as small rocky outcroppings.  My guess is that it has more to do with control over a swath of the ocean than any pragmatic use the islands themselves might have. 

There are protests in China around the Japanese embassy, and some of them spilled over to the US embassy where the car of our ambassador was damaged.  The protestors are saying that this reminds them of the time when Japan invaded Manchuria, which was highly offensive to the Chinese people, even though the native Manchurians are in fact NOT Chinese themselves.  Manchuria was a different nation, like Tibet, which China annexed at some point.

“On Tuesday the dispute mixed with remembrances of a 1931 incident that Japan used as a pretext to invade Manchuria, setting off a brutal occupation of China that ended only at the close of World War II. China marks every Sept. 18 by blowing sirens, but demonstrations such as those seen Tuesday are not routine.”

http://news.yahoo.com/beijing-demonstrators-damage-us-ambassadors-car-012025364.html

Seriously?  They are still doing this every month since the war?  There is no reason for people in China today to be angry at Japan.  All of those Japanese war criminals from WWII are dead, and the people alive today had nothing to do with what happened back then.  This is just as foolish as the black Americans who are still complaining about slavery as if it were part of their life, even though it ended over 100 years ago.  You cannot hold people responsible for something that their ancestors MIGHT have done in the past.  No one can help what people group they are born into, it’s just a circumstance.  Japanese people don’t wake up and think, “Hmm, how can we screw over Chinese people today?” 

The biggest imperialist nation in the far east today is China, which is not only geographically the largest, but which has taken Manchuria, Tibet, part of Mongolia, and a variety of Turkic groups to the west.  When a country invades other countries and integrates them into it’s authority structure that is called imperialism.

That being said, the whole reason why the Chinese government allows these protests, and why they blow sirens every day, is because they have a vested interest in directing the people’s anger toward Japan.  Why?  Because this is a typical tactic that the left uses in any part of the world.  They like to get people upset at someone other than them, so they keep bringing up things that happened in the past in order to keep them fresh.  It’s nothing but a distraction from the real villain and opresser, which is the left wing government. They dupe people into blaming their bad circumstances on something other than the real culprit. 

So it turns out that there was no Israeli man involved in the making of “Innocence of Muslims,” it was an Egyptian man named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.  Right now it looks like the man is going to be punished for making his movie.

Of course, officially he is not going to be punished for the movie, but for crimes of fraud and violation of probation, but let’s be real, if he had not made that movie no one would care about him one way or another.  This is just Obama’s attempt to appease our enemies on some level.  I spit on this man Obama.  He is the most vile disgusting fiend ever to occupy office in our country.  If he loves our enemies so bloody much then he should leave us and go live with them in their tents and drink camel piss right alongside them.  He can go suck eggs in Afghanistan or Sudan, with his buddies, and leave American alone.

Seriously.  Immediately after they find out who was behind the movie we start hearing news of investigations and taking this man to trial.  Whatever trial happens is probably going to be a show trail, with the punishment already in mind from the beginning.  Obama is looking to censor this man, just as he has already leaned on youtube to censor the video around the world.  Youtube has complied part way and censored the movie in some countries.

Also, I don’t care for how the media has been handling this.  First of all, releasing this man’s name is way out of line, especially given what we have observed about the Islamic tendency to kill people for things like this and place bounties on their heads, and given that we know they already want to kill him. Second, I want to know why every time they mention Muhammad in the news they call him “the prophet Muhammad.”

HE IS NOT A PROPHET! I thought the news media was run by atheists and agnostics. Atheists and agnostics should not be calling anyone a prophet because they don’t believe in the existence of such things. The only reason they would be doing that is if they were shameless brown-nosers. I want to know who the shameless brown nosing oikophobes are who gave orders to all the media goons to refer to that cursed child molesting polymorphously perveted bastard as a prophet? Let me know who these people are and I will put their pictures and names up all over the internet.

Seriously, if we are going to refer to that heathen devil worshipping monster then I am going to insist that every time Jesus is mentioned we refer to him as Jesus Christ, Son of God. I insist. It’s only fair and balance.

I think I’m going to be sick.

Anyways, my sympathies are with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who did nothing wrong in making that movie which shows Muslims and Muhammad for being EXACTLY what they are. 

Here is a clip:

One of my best friends is from the Netherlands.  He immigrated to the US some time ago and has decided to stay because we have more space and freedom here, but he gave me a suggestion on how we should treat Muslims based on how they treat others.  By others I mean both the native Christians and other religious minorities in their countries, and how they treat their hosts when they immigrate.  So here is one possible solution to Islam which could ameliorate it’s effects on our societies.

Put Muslims under Sharia, and by that I don’t mean their own moon worshipping rapist Sharia, I mean taking their ideas and applying it to them.  At least, those of them who live in our countries.  So here it goes:

1) Muslims will not be allowed to build new mosques.

2) Muslims will not be allowed to make the call to prayer or do anything that causes noise publicly.

3) Muslims will not be allowed to repair damage to any existing mosques, or expand the size of their facilities without our permission.  Even if they get damaged by a disaster or by some of our people, they still cannot fix it without our permission.

4) Muslims who want to remain practicing Muslims will have to pay a Jizya tax.  Failure to pay the Jizya tax means that they will have to change their religion or get out.  Of course infidels living under Islam would have to change their religion or die, but I’m cutting them a little break here.

5) They will be under no circumstances allowed to marry, date, or have sex with any of our women, but we can have whatever relations we want with their women. 

6) They will not be allowed to say anything against Christianity or any of the other major religions practiced in our countries without facing legal actions.  In their countries speaking out against Islam would be death, but again, I’m showing a little mercy here.

7) They will not be allowed to buy land from us, and if one of us buys land from them then the land can no longer be resold or returned to Muslim ownership.

8) If a Muslims changes their religion and decides that they want to change it back then they will not be allowed to, unless they want to be deported.

I think that’s all quite fair yes?  It is considerably softer than the way they treat religious and ethnic minorities in their own countries.  I have even waived off of the death penalty for 4, 6, and 8. 

If we put these policies into place then not only would the Muslims who are already here cause less trouble for us, but more of them would be discouraged from coming here.

Or, to save time we could just deport all the Muslims now.  We could rescue all the Coptic Christians and other religious minorities from the Middle East and bring them to the US.  Then we could take all of the Muslims from the US and Europe and drop them all back in their homelands.  That would be a winning scenario for both side.  Not only would we be free of the Muslims, but they would also be free of us.  They could have their pure Islamic paradise, and establish whatever “civilization” they wanted. 

Since I have already ranted about this to friends and family, I believe I can have a calm(er) discussion about it here.  Anyone following the news lately may have noticed that the Muslims have attacked our embassies in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen. 

The embassies in Libya and Egypt were attacked on 9/11, of all times to attack us.  In Libya they killed our ambassador and three of his aids.  Under normal circumstances such things would be an act of war, but we have a wonderful globalist and socialist Democrat in charge of the country, so apologizing to our enemies takes precedence over retribution.  Of course this is not the first time a thing like this happened. After the Islamic revolution in Iran our wonderful Democrat president at the time, Jimmy Carter, also did nothing, and it ended up costing him an election.  I hope the same will happen for that treacherous empty suite Obama.  Honestly, Kim Kardashian would make a better president than that blundering dolt.

That being said, yesterday I called one of my friends to vent, and he was not paying attention to the news so he didn’t hear what happened.  When I told him he said, “But we helped Libya and Egypt, why are they attacking us?”  It brought to mind the story of the coyote and the rattlesnake.

Once upon a time there was a coyote who went down to get a drink of water from a river and to cross it.  As he stood by the river he noticed a rattlesnake. The rattlesnake asked the coyote if he could carry him on his back as he swam across the river, but the coyote was hesitant.

“You will bite me,” the coyote said.

“I promise I won’t bite,” the rattlesnake said.

So the coyote (white liberals) felt sorry for the rattlesnake (Muslims) being stuck and agreed to carry him across the river.  Then, as they were halfway across the river the rattlesnake bit the coyote.

The coyote said, “Why did you do that?  Now we are both going to die.”

The rattlesnake said, “It’s my nature.”

So what I told my friend is that they do not care that we helped them.  We are infidels, which means that they owe us nothing no matter what we do.  People who spend time thinking about why they attacked us and why they hate us are wasting their time.  They hate us because we are not them, and they attacked us because that is what Muhammad told them to do.  It’s really quite simple, but it boggles the mind of most people because most people don’t think that way. 

Islam is what makes those people into savages.  If it were not for Islam they would be regular human beings, instead of insane necromongers.  They would probably be like Eastern Europeans, Indians, or Asians (depending on where they are from).  Instead they are a bunch of raving lunatics with an average IQ of 80. 

Supposedly the Muslims are enraged (this time) over a movie called “Innocence of Muslims,” which they claim mocked Islam.  I maintain that it just showed their dirty “prophet” for what he is, but even if they did mock him, that is no excuse for attacking and killing people, and killing a foreign ambassador IS an act of war, regardless of how badly our idiot in chief wants to sit on his hands. 

First of all, this is America, we have freedom of speech here.  That means that even if something is offensive you don’t get to run off and kill them.  Muslims are saying that we should punish the people who made the movie, but that’s not how it works.  They can make whatever movie they want with their own movie.  Also, Christians continually get made fun of by the entertainment industry and educators, but you don’t see us going on a killing spree over it, and you certainly do not see Muslims complaining about that or trying to come to our aid.  Similarly why should we want to go and defend their religion?  Why do we care?

There are many Muslims who think that their religion is self evident, and that everyone who does not follow it is in rebellion but secretly knows that it’s true.  That is simply idiotic, and certainly not the case.  To Christians is Islam is heresy.  At best some of us view it as just another pagan religion, but I tend to view it as a savage death cult which is more of a political ideology than a religion.  Under the best of circumstances I could not care less if someone makes fun of Islam.  Why should I care?  It’s not my religion so they aren’t insulting me.

Second, the people who made that movie were not even Americans.  One was an Israeli expat and the other was from Egypt.

Third, the people they killed in the embassy had nothing to do with making the movie.  Again, we have freedom of speech in the US.  If you don’t like it, don’t come here, but don’t throw a fit just because you can’t control what people do in other countries. Savages. 

But the truth is, it doesn’t matter where they were from or where they made the movie.  You don’t have the right to kill someone just because you don’t like what they said.  If your religion is so weak that the only way you can defend it is with violence then that means you have no real logical argument for your religion, which means your religion is probably false.  They were talking about defending their child banging prophet, but last time I checked Muhammad was dead.  What are they defending him from?  He’s already dead.  If they are talking about defending their religion then that’s fine, and they have the right to do that, but killing people for disagreeing with you does not in any way refute whatever they said.  Again, Muslims have a savage and backwards way of thinking.

As the men attacked our embassy in Libya one of the things they shouted was “we are all Osama,” and they did this on 9/11.  Really?  If that is the case then they all need to die.  Plain and simple.

Part of the reason this is happening is because the whole world knows we have a milksop in charge of the country who will not do anything, and whose loyalties are elsewhere.  In fact, out wonderful government has already issued an apology to the Muslims for this movie, and still they attack us.  This would not be happening if we still had Bush.  When we had Bush, they attacked two of our buildings and as a result we blew up two of their countries.  But this fool Obama will do nothing because his sympathies are with our enemies rather than us.  Anyone who votes for Obama in the next election hates America, plain and simple.  Everyone should see this man for what he is now.

This is Islam:

They are open about their goals.  It’s time we did something about it. 

So a guy walks into Hooters with his girlfriend…

I know, I know…  Anyone reading that is going to think I’m setting up a joke, but this is something that really happened.

A guy walks into Hooters with his girlfriend and they sit down to order some food.  They observe some of the workers laughing in a corner, and when they are given their receipt it says “Chinx” in the section for the customers name.

The couple was Korean, and in this case they were true Koreans/immigrants from Korea, not people born in the US.  They were so shocked/enraged by the receipt that they apparently lost their appetite, and are now involved in a lawsuit against Hooters.

The management of Hooters has already fired the young lady who rang them up, and they have already apologized for the insult.  So why is the lawsuit necessary, and on what grounds will the case be predicated?

I realize that people on the left would like to have racism made into a prosecutable legal offense, but the most important freedoms that makes our country worth living in is freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech means that people can express their views, thoughts, and opinions even if they hurt someone else’s feelings.  Usually the left will say, “Yes, we like freedom of speech but there is such a thing as being responsible.”  Yes there is, and that means owning the consequences of your actions, not having your freedom of choice taken away.  This girl has already paid for her actions, and she probably has learned a lesson from it.  Any worker who insults any customer for any reason is bad for business.

“Well don’t you think things would be better if people couldn’t say racist things?” a liberal might ask.  No, absolutely not.  Shackling people’s mouths means more suffering.  I would rather risk getting my feelings hurt, than facing legal actions such as paying fines, going to jail, or being blacklisted.  My freedom is more important than my feelings.  I will get over hurt feelings, or say something snarky in return if I am really offended, but it’s not so easy to shrug off getting arrested.

“Don’t say anything racist.”

How about you just don’t get your feelings hurt, or when it happens you handle it like a grownup?  What consitutes “racist” is often subjective, just like the Salem witch trials.

A smart judge will throw out this case and tell them to grow up.  Even with NDAA and all the other insanity going on I don’t think this case will go anywhere.  There is just nothing here to build a case on.  It would be one thing if they were seeking employment and were discriminated against based on their race, but being called any kind of racial slur is not a crime.

To be fair, Asians in the US probably receive one of the highest levels of racism.  The reason I say this is that they are not as protected by the PC mob as other groups do to their high level of achievement.  In addition, most people are not scared of Asians.  If it were a black couple I doubt anyone would have put “nigs” or anything on their receipt, because the fact is that most people are scared of black people.  I’m not trying to insult anyone here, just being real. 

Also, I’m thinking that even if the judge is a liberal the case will be dismissed because the cashier who drafted the receipt was black…

…unless someone else was logged in using Shenika’s account.  Because according to left wing intellectuals only white people can be racist, so in this case it would have to be written off as a typo on Shenika’s part.

But in all seriousness, my guess is that this couple just has yet to acclimate to the US and understand the laws.  Obviously they don’t get what’s going on or they never would have gone on a date to Hooters.  The fact that they would go there as a couple is a clear indication that some neurons aren’t firing properly.  Seriously.  Hooters?  What kind of an idiot takes his girlfriend to Hooters, and what kind of woman is OK with that?  Maybe a lot of men are going to Hooters for the breasts and thighs, but not the chicken.  Come on. 

That’s all I have to say on this. 

Source: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13831316-korean-american-man-sues-queens-hooters-over-racial-slur-on-receipt?lite

Since it is 9/11, I want us to take a moment to reflect on who our friends are, who are enemies are, and how important freedom is.

On 9/11 we were dealt an unprovoked attack by Islam which took us to war.  In 1941 we were dealt an unprovoked attack by Japan, but there was one very important difference.  The government of Japan had a tactical reason for attacking us while the Muslim attack was purely ideological.  It has been said that they attacked us for our freedom, and that is absolutely true.  Muslim societies are notoriously unfree, and the more Islamic they are the less free they are.  Under Islam there is no freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of dress, or freedom of diet.  Treatment of women is terrible.  If a woman gets raped then she is blamed for it, and if a husband wants to divorce his wife he can for any reason.  Non-believers are either killed or treated as second class citizens.

This is Islam:

Can anyone in their right mind honestly say that they would like to live under that sort of society?  Also notice the similarities in mannerisms and appearance between Hamas and Hizballah to the KKK and Nazis.  Similar motivations must at some point produce similar manifestations, even among different people groups.  Whether it is Islam or classic Nazism, we are still dealing with groups who believe that everyone is inferior to them, who want to take over the world, and who believe it is their right to do so by any means necessary.  I want to be very clear on this, Islam is the Nazism of today.  Just like the Nazis of WWII, they wage war on free countries, and in their own countries they kill and imprison people for disagreeing with their beliefs.  Like the Nazis, they do not really need any reason to attack us other than the fact that we are not them.  So no, we did not do anything to cause the attack on 9/11.

9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”

9.73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

So I say never forget 9/11, but also never forget what Islam is all about.

That being said, let’s take a lesson from our enemies, and remember that what they have is exactly what we don’t want here.  During the Cold War “In God we trust” was put on our money to further accentuate the ideological contrast between us and the unfree Soviets who trusted in big government and worshipped it as God.  It may seem like a small thing, but things like that are a sign of a healthy society, meaning that we recognize the difference between us and our enemies and rather than become like them we renounce them and make an effort to stay free.  I am not seeing so much of that with this ongoing war.  What I am seeing is the Patriot Act, and NDAA, which have put us in the same situation where our government can nab people off the streets and detain them without trial for speaking out.  If our government is going to become like our enemies then what good is their protection?

Also let us not forget who our friends are.  There is one country in the Middle East which has always been on our side, one country where people did not cheer in the streets when the Muslims attacked us.  Of course I am talking about Israel.  Israel has been a loyal ally in spite of how some of our presidents have given them the shaft.  What we need is more Israel and less Islam.  Of course Obama has turned his back on Israel out of preference for our enemies, but one thing that all the Christians and Jews in the US can do to support Israel is donate to them on an individual basis.  I have done this before even though I am a poor guy with very little money to spare.  If we all do it then it can make a huge difference for Israel and the Middle East.

That is all I have to say on this for now.

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.

 Recently I have been discussing how most of the world, particularly non-western countries, have little to no concept of political correctness.  This is a perfect example.  A man in the Gujarat state of India has opened a clothing store called “Hitler,” and in both the logo on the front and on his business cards he has a little swastica in the dot over the “i.”

Now if someone tried to do this in the US he would probably not be allowed to open up shop, in spite of the first ammendment.  No one would allow that in their community without a fight, and the proprieter would probably be blacklisted so that it would be very hard for him to open up a business under a different title or get work somewhere working for someone else.  But India is different because on average they have no concept of political correctness, and will not react to a thing like this with the same level of emotion.  But, there are people in the community (a small Jewish presence is there) pushing on this man to change the logo but he says he will not do it unless someone covers the cost.  In the meantime no one will make him, and chances are it will not hurt his business.

To be fair, the swastica does not mean the same thing in India that it means in the US or Europe today.  Today the swastica can still seen all over India.  It is also worth noting that the swastica was present in classic and medieval European art, and in ancient Persian art.  My theory is that the swastica was probably created by an ancient Indo-European folk hero who existed at a time when the Indo-European race was still living in one place.  The hero may have been illiterate, and used the swastica as his mark, as illiterate people will often do when they need to sign something.  Hitler was probably aware of how common the swastica was across Indo-European cultures, and latched onto it as a racial symbol for that reason.

For the Hindus the swastica is a religious symbol.  When I went to India I was surprised at how prevalent it was.  You can see it spraypainted on the front of the walls surrounding people’s homes, and on the sides of vehicles.  I also saw it decorating the grills of large trucks.  They were using the swastica as a religious symbol well before the Nazis appropriated it for their purposes, and they continue to do so today.  It is probably safe to say that most people in India are fairly ignorant when it comes to Hitler, either not knowing who he was or not knowing what he was about.  Education in India is also different.  In India they tend to focus more on vocations and skills during the educational process, and less on gen-eds and liberal arts.  They don’t get the same amount of education in history and literature as children in the US, and the agenda bias there is different.  They aren’t concerned about white supremacists, they are more concerned about Pakistan and China.  In addition, they also do not recognize special ed conditions there other than mental retardation, and things like ADD and OCD are taken as bad behavior or rebellion, and dealt with as such. 

So why did this guy open a store called Hitler?  The man who opened the store has claimed ignorance, stating that he never heard of Hitler prior to opening the store, and that he was naming his store after a nickname given to the grandfather of his store partner.  In the case of this man I simply do not believe him.  Hindu’s usually put four dots with the swastica when they use it, but this guy left them out, and with a name like Rajesh Shah he is probably not a Hindu.  Odds are this man is Muslim, so he would not be using the swastica for religious purposes.  In any case, he put the swastica in his logo which means that he associated it with Hitler, which means that he at least knew who Hitler was even if his knowledge about Hitler was incomplete.  Being a Muslim, this guy may even be a Hitler sympathizer, as are many other Muslims around the world today.  When Muslims protest in Europe they often shoute “God bless Hitler,” and it is also worth noting that during WWII there were Muslims fighting on Hitlers side in the Middle East and North Africa. 

I don’t have a statistic on this, but there are a few people in India who do honestly think that Hitler was a hero, or a person worthy of admiration.  Some time ago someone attempted to open a restaurant in Mumbai called “Hitler’s Cross” but following complaints from the Israeli embassy the name was changed.  In addition there was a Bollywood movie made about Hitler called “Dear Friend Hitler,” which omits a lot of the negative aspects about Hitler that made him so infamous.  The fact that a movie like DFH was made means that there are too many people who have incorrect views about Hitler.

There are some people who seriously think that Hitler would have been a friend of India because he fought against the English, which weakened their hold on India.  I once argued with a 19 year old Indian guy who thought Hitler and the Nazis were good people worthy of admiration.  He even went so far as to say that the Nazis were God’s people, which is quite the opposite of the truth in real life.  Again, I definitely believe that Indians who admire Hitler are a small fraction of the population, but the fact that people like that exist is enough reason for me to reiterate what Hitler was and what he stood for.

What Hitler was About:

Hitler referred to non-white people (and some other white ethnicities that he just didn’t like) as “untermensch” which literally means “under-man,” or lesser man if you will.  Hitler, like all white supremacists, was concerned primarily with the welfare of white people, and by that I mean racial purity and geographic dominance.  While I do consider myself to be pro-white (out of enlightened self interest) I could never jump on the white supremacist bandwagon because of their views on race mixing.  They tend to view mixing with other races as a form of dysgenics, and have an obsession with racial purity which can only be described as OCD.  All white supremacists believe that having non-white people around is dangerous, because they are terrified that someone will impregnate one of their women and thus pollute the gene pool.  One drop is all it takes to make someone a lesser man, and once perfection is lost it can never be recovered.  To Hitler the Indians and other hybrid peoples would be viewed as an abomination and an example of what not to do. 

We can guess how he would have treated Indians based on how he treated the Gypsies.  Hitler hated the Gypsies and put them into death camps just like he did with the Jews, and it has been proven through studies that the Gypsies were originally a nomadic tribe of Indians.  Now, it is true that there is a long history of animosity between Europeans and Gypsies, but I can’t imagine Hitler treating anyone who closely resembles Gypsies with respect. 

Someone might say, “Well we didn’t do anything to them.”  But it does not matter.  That is like saying that the insect that falls into the spider’s web is safe because he never did anything to the spider.  You don’t have to do anything to provoke people like that.  They have an ideology which tells them that they are superior and everyone else is inferior, so they will kill you just because you are different and in the way.  Islam is like this as well.

“But they worked with the Japanese.”  Yes, they worked with the Japanese, but it was not an alliance of mutual admiration, it was one of convenience.  Both the Japanese and Germans viewed one another as inferior races.  They worked together in the same way that two misanthropic playground bullies might agree to divide up the playground for a time so that they will individually encounter less resistance as they steal candy from the other kids.  Originally they Nazis and Russians were allies but the Nazis turned on them. 

Everyone should understand what the Nazis were about. 

Nazi Germany had no freedom of speech, and people could be arrested, detained, and executed without trial for speaking against the state.  With NDAA we are now headed in that direction, and everyone should be disturbed by that.  But aside from that there are two reasons why I especially dislike the Nazis.

I was raised in a Christian conservative home, and one of the concepts drilled into my head at an early age was that the Jews were God’s chosen people.  I grew up believing that it was blasphemous to curse the Jews or wish them ill as a people.  So to me what Hitler did to the Jews was blasphemous and Satanic, and even if their uniforms looked cool or whatever, there is no amount of window dressing that will make up for the evil things they did. 

Another thing I strongly dislike is how the cultural Marxists were able to use Hitler and the Nazis as a springboard to launch their ideology.  Cultural Marxism started after WWI, but it really did not even begin to take off until after WWII.  The Nazis gave them the fuel to launch their culture war on western civilization, and since then they have continually used the Nazis to villify and browbeat the entire non-Islamic white race (those who are in Islam are not subject to criticism and get a free pass to do whatever they want).  Nevermind that it was white people who stopped the Nazis, and more white people died than anyone else during WWII to stop them.  White people stopped him because his ideology and actions were contrary to their values and way of life.  If all white people were closet racists and Nazis as the cultural Marxists say, then all of them would have just jumped into Hitlers boat, and today we would all be goose stepping and speaking German, and most of the rest of the world would be dead. 

But I digress, my point is that no one should be admiring Hitler.  That man caused so much trouble, both directly and indirectly, and people need to understand what he was about.  White people should not admire Hitler because he was an evil despot and many of our ancestors died to stop him, and everyone else should dislike him because he wanted to kill them all eventually.

The article on the Hitler store: http://news.yahoo.com/hitler-clothing-store-stirs-anger-india-133743884.html