I wanted to comment on some issues that were in the news, but I delayed and let them pile up so now I am going to discuss them all at once.

Alleged “Hate Crime”

 

Has anyone heard about Charlie Rogers?  Some time ago I saw her in the news.  She is a 33 year old lesbian in Nebraska who made the news by alleging that she was attacked by three men who tied her up and carved anti-gay slurs into her skin.  I have never heard about anything like that happening in the US.  Of course I do not approve of the gay lifestlye, but I do not approve of mutilating them either.  But the main thing I wanted to say was that I find it interesting how the only way white people can be victims of hate crimes is if they are gay.  The liberal media wasted no time in calling the incident a hate crime, well before all of the facts were in.  I was thinking, if this really happened to that woman then it is shameful and horrible, and maybe the men were motivated by hatred, but the same is true about the thousands of white women who are raped by black men in the US each year. 

Over 30,000 white women are raped by black men each year in the US, and the media (controlled by Cultural Marxists) is completely mum on the issue.  Some of the rapes are quite brutal, and in some cases a couple is gang raped by a group of black men.  None of this is ever labled as a hate crime, but if a group of white men raped one black woman, used racial pejoratives, and LIT HER ON FIRE then you can bet it would be all over the media, not just in the US but all over the world. 

In any event, when I read the first article about Charlie Rogers my first thought was “that’s horrible” but immediately after that I thought “that’s very convenient, this could be a hoax.”

Of course it has recently come out that it was a hoax.  This woman was trying to start something, and given how the left is anxious to create an atmosphere of persecution against the usual crowd they like to play up as victim groups they immediately jumped on it.  They did not even bother to check up on all the facts before they published a story because they were so anxious to stir up trouble and denegrate the people of this country.  BTW, I don’t really consider homosexuals to be a group.  To call homosexuals a group makes about as much sense as calling masturbaters a group.

That being said, the woman has now been arrested, and it looks like she is going to have to serve some jailtime and pay a fee for lying to the police.

It turns out that each testimony she gave the cops did not match, and they did not find any evidence that she was attacked or bled on her bed.  The wounds on her body were all superficial and avoided areas where they could do serious harm, and her blood was found on a boxcutter which she carelessly left in a room.

Source: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13397580-lesbian-who-alleged-nebraska-hate-crime-charged-with-lying-about-attack?lite

 

A Real Hate Crime:

 

Personally, I dislike the term “hate crime” because it leaves so much room for subjective interpretation, and it implies that a crime is somehow worse because of the type of feelings that go into it.  To me, if a man beats his wife to death because he can’t stand her then it is no less vile than a guy who beats another guy to death because of his race.  Either way it’s bad.  But if I had to call somethign a hate crime, then this would be it.  In Pakistan an 11 year old girl from a Christian family is facing the death penatly for a “blasphemy” charge. 

I always feel sorry for Christians living in Islamic countries because the kind of persecution they face goes well beyond what the majority of complacent people in western countries can imagine.  Not only are they under continual pressure to convert, which includes job discrimination, but their children often have to go through an Islamic education where they are made to memorize Koran verses, and they have to deal with random killings and their daughters being kidnapped and forced to marry Muhammadens.  In many Islamic countries churches are defaced and desecrated, and not only are the Christians not allowed to seek recourse, but they are often not allowed to repair the churches or build new ones. 

Here is an excerpt:

On Monday, Pakistani police arrested the girl, known only by her first name, Ramsha, after accusations that she burned pages of the Koran, Islam’s holy book. In Pakistan, it is a crime to utter derogatory statements or insult the Prophet Muhammad or the Koran in any way. Blasphemy convictions carry an automatic death sentence.

The accusations, made by the girl’s neighbors in a mixed Christian-Muslim neighborhood, sent area Muslims into a fury, with some police reports suggesting an angry mob of hundreds of men descended on her home demanding authorities arrest her and charge her with blasphemy.

They then allegedly went on a rampage, attacking the girl’s family and setting Christian houses on fire. The girl’s parents are now in protective custody and, according to reports, several Christian families have left the neighborhood, an impoverished district in the country’s capital, Islamabad

In the meantime they have locked this 11 year old girl up in jail, and that’s not all, the girl has Down’s Syndrome.  Why do they want to kill a little retarded girl?  Is it for eugenic purposes (like Nazi Germany), or is it something else.  My guess is that they just decided to start something with the Christians.  Here is my theory:

One day one of the Muslims, let’s call him Muhammad Jihad, was walking through the neighborhood and he passed by the house where Christians were. 

He looked at their house as he walked by and said, “Those dirty infidels, I don’t know why they don’t convert to my religion of peace.   Someone should have killed them by now.   I know!  They have a retarded kid.  I think I’ll accuse the retarded kid of doing something, and maybe they will convert to avoid trouble, or get out of the neighborhood.  Either way I win.”

So then Muhammad Jihad goes and spreads the rumors, and of course the other Muslims get outraged because they get outraged pretty much anything.  They are the most sensitive people in the world.  So they all take up the cause and there we have it. 

So messing with a Koran in Porkistan carries the death penalty, but I’m sure the same is not true if anyone destroys a Bible. 

I doubt this child burned a Koran, if she’s got Down’s then she’s probably not capable of thinking in that way.  However, even if she did, I don’t see what is so bad about burning a Koran.  You can’t exactly flush a Koran down the toilet, and I’m not too sanguine about putting biodegradable things in the trash.  If you put something in the trash in the US then it just ends up getting buried in a landfil, sometimes it is sealed up in plastic bags.  But burning the Koran will return it to the soil more quickly, and then at least it can serve some noble purpose.

But in all seriousness, people need to get their heads out of the sand with Islam.  Here we have an ideology which is worse than the Nazis and the Japanese of WWII.  Those people take a lot of heat (mainly the Nazis because they were white), but those people are dead, done, and gone now.  But when they were around they were still not as bad as Islam.  Islam is a poisenous, deadly, fascist ideology which is hellbent on taking over the world, and dragging it down to the dirt once they do take over. 

Islamic countries are not oppressive, violent, unfree, mysogynist, technologically moribund hellholes because white people were mean to them at some point in the past, or because they don’t have enough resources.  Islamic countries are all of those things because they are full of Muslims.  Wake up people.

But wait, it gets worse.  Here is the part of the article that disturbed me the most:

The case is drawing worldwide condemnation, including from senior officials in the United States, a key military and political ally that gives billions in annual aid to Pakistan.

I knew that some money was going there, but billions?!  So Obama c an’t find the money to continue our space program, or to build the moon colony (Constellation program), and he also tried to cancel the second round of the Mars program* but somehow he can afford to send billions of dollars a year to these barbarians who hate us and want to kill us?  That man Obama is a traitor.  Well no, “traitor” is reserved for citizens who serve the enemy, Obama is a foreign element who was put into power by traitors. 

We really need to start deporting Muslims out of the country.  I could say a lot more about Islam, but I will do so in a separate article.  Instead what I want to do is say something to any Muslims who might be reading this.

Muslims, I want you to understand some things so pay attention because this is important.  I know you think you know something about Christians, but since everything you think you know comes from the propagandists in your madrasas you really don’t know much of anything, if anything at all about us.  The only way you are going to know is if you talk to us (which would involve interacting with us in a way other than violence), or reading the Bible.  So I am going to set you straight. 

To us your Koran is nothing but false teaching, and we don’t consider it holy.  We don’t consider Muhammad to be a prophet or even a decent man.  There is NOTHING in the Bible that points to the Koran.  There is nothing in the Bible that “sets things up” for Islam.  As far as we are concerned you are just another group of pagans, even though you only worship one god.  You still worship a different god than we do so that makes you pagan or heathen, or idolaters as far as we are concerned.  We do not view you as fellow believers on any level.  We have no reason to attach a higher level of status or kinship to Islam than we do to the Nation of Wanubian Moors, or the Heavens Gate crowd. 

In fact, if anything we consider you to be blasphemers, because you go around claiming that our holy text (which we consider to be the word of God) is wrong because your cult leader said so.  That is no kind of argument, because we don’t care what Muhammad had to say about anything.  He gets no more special status with us than David Koresh.  We also consider it blasphemy to alter the word of God, and in fact it says in the last chapter of the Bible that anyone who takes away or adds to the Bible will be severely punished.  So to us, you are the blasphemers.

While most of us do not burn Korans, there is nothing in our belief system or holy text that says we have to respect yours. 

Here is the article on the Pakistani girl: http://news.yahoo.com/girl-11-could-face-death-pakifor stan-blasphemy-213643977–abc-news-topstories.html

 

*Here is the article where Obama tried to cancel the Mars program:

 http://newyork.newsday.com/news/world/curiosity-mars-landing-highlights-nasa-budget-woes-1.3899502

How does this man honor our scientists for their great achievment and commemorate the success of the Curiosity lander on Mars?  By trying to shut down the interplanetary branch of Nasa and cancelling all future programs to Mars.  This man is a saboteur:

Initially, the first two of these missions — scheduled for 2016 and 2018 — were to be undertaken in conjunction with the European Space Agency. But NASA canceled these missions this year, and the United States has backed out of its partnership with the Europeans. Adding to the misery, President Barack Obama‘s fiscal 2013 budget proposed cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the Mars Exploration Program. Simply put, the crown jewel of the U.S. planetary science program is hanging by a budgetary thread.

What a villain!  This man finds money to support terrorists who hate us but he has to cut funding for our future. 

The purpose of this entry is to help others understand conservatives better, the primary target audience in this case is fence sitters somewhere between left and right, but also political leftists who might be curious.  Perhaps I can even point some leftists in the right direction (pun must definitely intended).  Although I can only speak for myself, I definitely believe that the same basic thought patterns are present in most conservatives.  There are vast differences in the way that people on the left and people on the right think, but most of them can be boiled down to issues of trust and freedom.

Lessons from my childhood:

For me, I began thinking about motivations and credibility at a very young age.  The first time I ever lied to my dad I received a sound whipping.  In addition to the whipping I grew up with Biblical teachings, and the Bible contains many admonitions against lying.  So in addition to being frightened of punishment from my parents, I was also frightened of punishment from God.  That is not to say that I never lied again after that (once more during childhood), but the amount of times I have deliberately lied can be counted on one hand, and I always confessed.  However, it was not long after that when I discovered that all of my peers shared my values, in fact very few of them did.  I learned very early on that when someone does not share my values they cannot be expected to behave in a similar fashion.

In middle school I began thinking more deeply about motivations.  I went to a small private school where I was essentially the opposite of popular.  Being in that position allows one to observe human interactions from a 3rd person perspective.  I began to notice behavior patterns.  For example, if a student had a large pack of gum or mints, he would share with one or two of his close friends even if he received nothing tangible in return.  On some occasions he might share with an acquaintance or casual friend in exchange for nothing, and others he would not share with at all unless they offered something for barter.  In the case of tangible gain the student placed higher value on the other object than he did on the piece of gum or mint that he exchanged for it.  In the cases where nothing tangible was given I was able to ascertain that the giving was an attempt to win favor or gratitude from the recipient.  When it came to myself I had to barter if I wanted something that another student had, while others did not.  I observed that it was the same for the other unpopular students.  The one with the resources was not interested in gaining favor from myself or a handful of others, so we were only able to obtain goods through barter.  I deduced that people are primarly motivated by the acquisition of resources or security, and the strength and proportions of those motivations tend to vary. 

These early experiences shaped how I would view and react to others in the adult world.  For others the early experiences that shaped their thought process will vary, but the results should be similar among conservatives.

Trust:

Trust is to be earned, not given.  Just because someone says they will do or not do a thing is no reason to assume they will.  First their credibility must be established before I take their word as fact, and even if it is established that a person does not tell deliberate falsehoods, that does not mean that their information is factual.  They could be a firm believer in something which is factually incorrect. 

What a person believes determines their values, and their values determine how they act.  On average I find it easier to believe people who share my belief system than I do others.  However, just because someone says that they share my beliefs does not automatically mean that they do.  Credibility must first be established, and if it is a prominant figure who either needs to maintain or establish influence I cannot afford to automatically rule out that they might be motivated by those needs.  In general I have to watch and assess before I can trust someone.  Usually I have to know that person personally before I can trust them.  It is much easier to establish negative credibility than positive.  Establishing negative credibility can be done at a distance, but positive credibility has to be observed over time and validated by actions.

It doesn’t matter how educated someone is, or how wealthy, or how connected they are.  I have no reason to take people I do not personally know at face value if I cannot independently verify what they are saying.

It should also be noted that trust is long in building, but swift in breaking.

When it comes to my personal heirarchy of trust this is roughly how it goes, from most trustworthy to least trustworthy:

1. Family

2. Churches I attend (certainly not all churches)

3. Businesses

4. Televangelists

5. Government

6. Thugs in the street (with NDAA 5 and 6 may soon switch places, or merge together)

Another factor which plays heavily into trust is motives, and motive is a significant factor in the derivation of this list.  Entities with apparant motives I am more likely to trust, not on a personal level, but on a pragmatic level.  I have a method of predicting their behavior extrinsic to what they say and believe.

Motivations:

When someone says or does something I typically do not just say “OK” and go along with it.  I will think, “Why did they say/do that?”  Usually I will wonder what they have to gain from it, if I care.  There are situations which do not affect me, and in those cases I sometimes do not care one way or another.  For example, I could not care less if my neighbor is arguing with his wife over whether they should have blinds or drapes. 

The reason why I, and other conservatives, find it easier to trust businesses than government is because of the motives behind each entity.  We know that the primary motive of a business or salesman is to make a profit.  We know that they would like us to buy their products, but they cannot force us to, and we know that they would like us to come back again later on.  Given their motivation, we can be reasonably certain that their biases and beliefs will not factor in as much, and that they do not generally care about our beliefs and biases either (but the same cannot be said about entertainers).  I happen to have a large DVD collection.  I have enough TV series and movies in my collection that I could probably watch a different movie or episode a day for the rest of my life.  What many of the DVD’s have in common is a statement that says something like this: “The views and commentary in this production do not reflect the views of __________ corporation.”  So while we may not be able to trust them on a personal level the way we can trust a friend, we can trust their motivations, and those will act as a behavior constraining mechanism.

The same is not true of government.  When it comes to politicians, what is said and the motivation behind it are two different things.  Take welfare for example.  When it comes to welfare advocates we can rule out altruism or charity as a motivating factor because one cannot be charitable with another person’s property, and altruism involves self sacrifice.  Giving to charity of one’s own funds and resource is one thing, while using bully boys to distribute another persons property is another.  So I tend to believe that their motives are something other than altruism.  But anytime a politician is claiming altruistic motivations for something which will result in more power and control for them I automatically dismiss their stated motive on the following grounds:

1. I do not know them personally, and they do not share my values, therefore I have no reason to take them at their word.

2. One cannot be charitable with another persons property.

I find myself in the position of having to look past their words and toward their actions and the consequences of their actions in order to determine their motives.  If they were truly altruistic then they would “practice what they preach” as it were.  They would cut their own salaries down to the level of minimum wage and distribute the rest to the poor.  Especially given that every cent of their salaries comes from hard working tax paying citizens.  Instead they do the opposite, giving themselves increasingly higher salaries while still talking about how people who actually generate wealth should give more.  There is a serious disconnect between their words and their actions.  There is also a disconnect between their stated goals and the consequences of their actions.  Rather than solving poverty they only compound it and cause it to multiply.  This leads me to believe that the consequences are the goal rather than the stated goal, and the consequences work out to their benifit as they have an ever growing dependant class which they can consistently rely on for votes.

So again, it comes down to motive.  It always comes down to motive.

When I read or watch the news and hear what a politician said or did then I typically ignore the stated motive, and instead go through the following list of questions:

What do they get out of it?

How will it affect them?

How will it affect the country?

How will it affect me?

I never once assume that they are interested in helping me in any way for the sake of altruism.  They don’t know me, so they cannot care about me as an individual, even on the off chance that they are capable of some level of altruism.  They might cater to a group which I may be a part of but they always get something in exchange for it.  At the very least they get support and power. 

At this point any liberals who are reading this are probably thinking, “That’s an extremely jaded point of view.”  Rather than call it jaded, which implies a disparity, I would prefer to describe my perspective as realistic rather than idealistic.  The realist gets taken advantage of and decieved less than the idealist, but that brings me to my next point.  Liberal and conservative beliefs about human nature are entirely different.

Human Nature:

Conservatives, regardless of religious preference, tend to believe that human nature is fixed.  People are people, and human nature is going to be what it is regardless of how much legislation and propaganda any government spews out.  A human can’t stop being a human any more than a dog can stop being a dog.  Even conservatives who believe in evolution still believe that there is nothing governments or propagandists can change the basic makeup of human nature.  The reason why we have laws and religion is to regulate the madness of humanity and provide some semblance of order on a mad and inherently selfish world. 

Certain people believe that human nature can be changed through medication, surgery, and genetic engineering, and they think this is a good idea, while conservatives consider each of those ideas to be travesties.  Medication and surgery can change the personalities of individuals, but cannot cause changes on a meta-level that would affect human nature.  In theory genetic engineering could be used to create humanoid beings which might have a different level of intelligence and emotional capacity, but such beings would technically be post human.  The fact remains that human nature cannot be changed, and even if it could be there is no human being or groups of humans who I would trust with such a task.  I could trust neither their motives nor their abilities.

For me, and other conservatives, freedom (risks included), is infinitely more valuable than someone’s utopian fantasies.  To anyone who wants to force their utopian construct on me I say you keep your “utopia,” I’ll keep my freedom.  Even if they would like to kill me for my love of freedom and for speaking out against them, I would rather be dead than live in a world with no freedom of thought or expression.

Freedom vs. Security:

In general, people on the left tend to value security over freedom.  Conservatives value freedom over a false sense of security through increased government oversight.  A person who gives up their freedom for security will have neither, and deserves to have neither.  We find our security in our freedom, and in our belief in God.  The more control we have over our resources, our property, and our lives, the happier we are.  Let me keep that money that the Federal and State government scrapes out of my paycheck.  I lose about $400 to the Federal government and about $100 to the state government.  I would rather lose whatever dubious “benifits” I MIGHT recieve from the government in exchange for a higher standard of living and more control over my resources.  Medicaid and medicare I am supposed to get when I am older, but I could just save the money on my own, and if I manage it poorly then it’s on me and no one else has to bear the brunt of my fall. 

As it is now, I have no guarantee that I will ever get any of that money back.  Maybe those programs will close down, or maybe there will be a policy change cutting me off from receiving health benifits after I pass a certain age.  Let me have my own stuff.  I

I would also rather have the freedom to bear arms and respond to threats against my person and family with deadly force than have a nanny state which takes up all the guns (like England and China), or even puts in place stupid laws requiring your assailant to use deadly response before you can respond with deadly force (South Africa).  I say “freedom” rather than “right” because rights exist independent of human laws, but freedom does not.  Those kinds of laws do nothing to hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves.  Yes guns can be used to hurt people, but so can kitchen knives and bare hands.  What next?  Are we going to take up all the kitchen knives?  What about blunt objects, what about bear hands?  Start cutting off people’s hands?  What about people who possess superior physical strength such as myself?  Should we all be forced to become weak and flabby?  I’ll say this, laws or no laws, if someone is in my house going after my wife then I am going to deal with him right away.  I would rather deal with him myself than wait for the cops to get there.  I can deal with him right away, especially if I have a gun.  The more freedom I have to defend myself the more secure I will be. 

Rights:

Conservatives all believe in natural rights.  We believe either that the rights come from God or nature.  Either way, they are intrinsic properties of being human, and no amount of legislation can make them go away.  Some things are beyond the power of government to change, they are what they are.  For example, I am 31 years old.  It does not matter if someone is unhappy about me being 31, because no one can do anything to change it except for God.  No amount of legislation is going to change how long I have existed, and no harm done to my person is ever going to change my actual age.  Similarly I have certain rights which exist independent of the government, and as much as the government might hate it or refuse to believe in it, they do not have the authority to revoke my rights.  For the government to claim that they gave me rights is about as asenine as claiming that they gave me my age.  Some things exist intrinsicly as a property of existence.  They can violate my rights but they cannot change the fact that the rights exist.  They can take away my freedom though, which is why when they do curtail freedom it is all the more an anathema to me.

Government:

I do not see any figure in the government as my leader, even politicians who SEEM to embody most of my values, such as Ron Paul and Herman Cain.  On the contrary, they are my servants.  I do not see them as sources of emulation, and I certainly could not care less if they swatted a fly during an interview, or where they had their first kiss.  That sort of idolatry is a foreign concept to me, as well as an anathema.  So what?  I should get excited about some guy while he’s in power?  No way.  All I am thinking is “I hope he doesn’t cause too much damage.”

If it seems like I and other conservatives are hostile toward government it is not because we don’t like order, but because we don’t like people telling us what to do.  When my boss tells me what to do at work that’s one thing, because in that case I am getting paid to perform a specific function.  In the case of government I am paying them, so they should be doing what I say.

The only valid function of government is to protect us from external threats which could take away our lives and/or freedoms.  For example, with the right equipment and/or training I can protect my house from a burgler, or a group of burglers, but I could not protect my house from The Peoples Republic of China, or the entire Islamic World.  Not on my own.  That’s where government comes in as useful.  Anything they try to do which curtails my personal freedoms is an overstepping of their purview.  If the government decided that another government or a particular people groups is threat then I expect to have a say in whether or not we go to war with them.  Especially since my money is funding the war.  For example, I do not approve of putting our troops under UN commanders, and I did not approve of the war in the Balkans which was waged by Clinton on behalf of Muslims.  As far as I am concerned there should be no Muslims in the Balkans. 

The politicians are supposed to do what I say, not the other way around.  The purpose of elections is to have a representative government.  They are supposed to be public servants, not the other way around.  Today it has come to be the other way around, and that is an anathema to me and to other conservatives.  They have no business taking any of my paycheck, or forcing me to spend my money on a commodity I either do not want or cannot reasonably afford, and they certainly have no business locking people up for speaking out against them.   

Even if we had a monarchy, I would still consider the proper role of a king to be that of a public servant.  If he starts oppressing people then he has to go.  What good is a government if the people are forced to serve it rather than the other way around?  If that’s how it is going to be than we may as well be invaded and conquered by anyone, because all we are doing is exchanging one slave master for another.  Although to be fair, some task masters are worse than others.

That is all I have to say for now.  I hope this was informative.

So I got a raise a little while ago thinking that maybe that’s enough, but no, the Federal government takes even more of my paycheck now.  So the government is taking a little over $500 from me each month, which still leaves me with less than $2000 a month.  Now the government wants to make me sign up for health insurance and pay for it.  If they didn’t take $500 from me each month then I could actually AFFORD health insurance. 

How is anyone supposed to live like that?  What can I say.  God will judge these people for what they do and for the ways they hurt average and sub-average citizens.

 

 Since I have talked about immigration on many occasions, I thought it would be appropriate and expedient to give an exposition about my position on immigration, and line out exactly where I stand and what I believe things should be done.  Some of the things I have said about immigration may seem contradictory on the surface, but there is actually a method and order behind my position which is not at all contradictory.  That being said, most positions on immigration fall into three basic categories, which I will designate as Green Light, Yellow Light, and Red Light policy.  It should be noted that these are loose categories, and that variation exists within each position, as well as gradients between them.

Green Light Policy:

The Green Light Policy is the most open form of immigration policy.  One can think of GLP as “anything goes.”  There is no limit to the amount of immigration, or on where it comes from.  There may be occasions where governments place limits on the flow of immigration, but there is no plan to shut off the flow, either permanently or temporarily.  There is also little or no repatriation of immigrants.  The most open form of GLP allows for anyone to come and stay once they arrive. 

The motivations behind GLP vary, but it is usually instituted by left wing governments.  Ostensibly one motivation for GLP is to bring in a fresh supply of workers, or a continual flow of new workers, but often it is done to instigate a demographic makeover, or to bring in a fresh supply of voters for the left wing parties.  Many of the immigrants who come under these conditions live off of the system rather than contribute to it. 

People who support GLP are typically motivated by guilt, or are globalists/anti-nationalists who dislike the idea of nations and political boundaries.

Examples of GLP include England, Holland, which are swamped with immigrants from widely disparate cultures.

Yellow Light Policy:

Yellow Light Policy can be defined as limited immigration.  Immigrantion may be limited by need, culture, race, religion, or a combination of factors.  To put it simply, potential immigrants may be filtered based on compatibility with the host culture and/or their potential for productivity once they arrive.  YLP is based more on pragmatism rather than ideologically driven social engineering, although that can factor in at times.  Adherants of YLP typically think “how can these people help us if we let them in?” rather than, “let’s help these foreign people by letting them in.”

Countries operating under YLP will often repatriate foreign nationals who are either unproductive, detrimental, or who were only allowed in under certain conditions or for a limited amount of time. 

The US has operated historically under YLP.  Immigration was mostly limited by need, and some groups were given preferance over others based on race and culture.  The bulk of the immigration was European up until the 20th century, and people who came filled economic needs.  Bringing the west under cultivation and working in factories were the primary needs.  Today the US is very close to GLP but not quite there, as there are still significant restrictions based on race and nationality.  For example, immigration policy towards Mexico is dangerously loose, but immigration policy toward Indian Nationals is extremely strict.  It is next to impossible for Indians to get visiting visas, and there is a tremendous waiting period and a high level of scrutiny involved in the application process for other types of visas, including work visas.

Another example of a country that operates under YLP is Mexico, which ironically turns back immigrants from the countries to the south who try to cross their border.  Mexico is not closed to immigration, but discriminating in who they let in and on what basis. 

Israel is another example, which limits immigration based on ethnicity and religion. 

Red Light Policy:

Countries that operate under Red Light Policy are either extremely hostile toward immigration, or entirely closed to it. Foreign workers may be allowed in under certain conditions, but are not allowed to stay their permanently.  RLP is always ideologically driven, and typically stems from a fear of contamination.  The only thing that varies is the manner of contamination which is feared.

Japan is a country which operates under RLP.  Japan does allow foreign workers but not foreign immigrants.  In fact, a foreign tourist may even be expelled for sleeping with a Japanese prostitute.  Why?  The Japanese government is concerned about racial contamination.  They want to remain Japanese and Asian.  They do not want racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity.  They believe that the more homogenous a society is the better.  I do not believe that that is how the majority of Japanese feel but that is how their government is.

Another country which operates under RLP is North Korea.  North Korea is completely closed, both to immigration and travel.  I do not know what the official government position there is on race mixing, but my guess is that they have one given that it is not even a factor there.  The borders are closed in that case because they fear ideological contamination.  The government is opressive, and actively limits the amount of information that the people are exposed to.  Any sort of outside influence is completely unwanted. 

China is another example of RLP.  China allows foreign workers but not foreign immigrants, and workers exist there on a temporary basis and where they can go and what they can do is restricted while they are there.

My Position:

I of course fall into the category of YLP.  I believe that immigration should be need based, and that potential immigrants should be assessed for cultural compatibility before they come.  Mass immigration is especially bad during an economic downturn.  Immigrants who are coming here should be coming to fill a specific need.  The only needs that exist are either to fill a job, or to marry.  In the first case they should already have a job offer before they are allowed to move here. 

In case anyone is wondering how marriage is a need, it is really quite simple.  It is the role of every good and PRODUCTIVE citizen to reproduce so that the culture and society can continue, and so that they will have a support basis other than the government in their old age.  The role of a spouse is a position that needs to be filled, just like jobs in the private sector, and in both cases if no one suitable can be found to fill the vacancy locally then bringing in a qualified foreign national is perfectly acceptable, and necessary. 

In the case of marriage, the citizen should be able to support the foreign national so that they will not be a burden on the system, and no foriegn born person should be allowed to receive welfare.  Foreign nationals should only be allowed to contribute positively to the system. 

But regardless of what need exists to be filled, determining cultural compatibility is absolutely essential.  Whoever comes needs to be able to assimilate, or to at least contribute productively.  Cultural compatibility does not necessarily mean assimilation.  For example, I fully support Indian, Asian, and European immigration.  To use the US as an example, Europeans assimilate immediately, or in one generation at the most, because most of us are Europeans to begin with.  Asian immigrants do not assimilate right away, which is where the designation FOB comes from.  Typically their children will be fully acclimated to the US, so assimilation will occur in one, or at the most two generations.  Indians take a good deal longer to assimilate, and seldom engage in miscogeny even after being here for a few generations, but both Indians and Asians contribute positively and are net producers rather than net drains on our society.  They may not adopt the culture right away, but in the meantime they contribute positively and cause no problems.  Their cultures are compatible with ours, which allows us to coexist peacefully together even if we are not quite the same.

Some groups should be given preferential treatment, while others should be kept out completely and not allowed in under any circumstance.  For example, Islamic immigration should be entirely banned for many good reasons.  They are completely incompatible with other cultures.  Anyone who categorizes all unbelievers as “the abode of war” should not be allowed to move to a different abode.  It is simple common sense.  Most people in the US, and in the world, would be leary of former Nazi Gestapo agents moving into their countries.  We should be similarly distrustful of Islam, which contains all the worst aspects and vices of the Nazi movement, plus a good deal more.  Muslims can never assimilate, and they can never be loyal to the host country or identify with it if they are true practicing Muslims.  They act as parasites in western countries, demanding special treatment, living off the state, and producing many children.  They are a subversive element incapable of peacefully coexisting with other cultures, and incapable of assimilation.

I am not so supportive of the mass immigration which we receive from Mexico.  I would like to see that curtailed drastically.  Surprisingly the average IQ for Mexico is higher than the average IQ for India, yet Indians in the US score consistantly higher on average than the national average, while Mexicans score lower.  Why is that?  Because there is a limit on who can come here from India, but no limit on who can come here from Mexico.  As a result, most of the Mexicans we get are less intelligent, while most of the Indians we get are more intelligent.  Mexican immigration is such an issue that it could be addressed in a separate article on it’s own, but my point here is that all immigration should be restricted and regulated.

So while I do not oppose immigration in and of itself, I do oppose certain types of immigration and I definitely oppose unlimited immigration.  GLP is suicide, and no country can continue to exist under a sustained immigration policy like that.  Cultural Marxists are pushing GLP because they want world government, and nations are the biggest obstacle to world government.  For now they are targetting white western countries, but is foolish for anyone to think that they will stop with us.  Once the have destroyed our countries they will move to the eastern world, perhaps beginning with Japan.  I also find the concept of having immigration for the sake of immigration, and especially for the purpose of a demographic makeover to be shameful and ethno-masochist.

That being said, I definitely would not want to live in a country where RLP is the modus operandi.  While RLP is certainly not as harmful or destructive as GLP, it certainly can be detrimental when it comes to filling needs which cannot be filled locally.  They might miss out on some scientific breakthroughs because the scientists go elsewhere, or there might actually be a shortage of workers, or a shortage of viable women.  I believe it would be a severe and profound mistake for the US to switch to a RLP.  We would not survive as a people under RLP because of how the women are averse to reproduction.  All the same, I have no problems with other countries having these policies if the majority of people wish to have them, so long as the people who do not wish it are allowed to leave and go somewhere more suited to their needs.  So I have no quarrel with the system in Japan, but I do have issues with the system in North Korea.

So the 2012 Olympics are done now, so I wanted to say something about the opening and closing ceremonies.  I never actually watched the opening ceremony, but I read about it in the news, mainly because I kept hearing that it was a cultural Marxist left wing propaganda piece, and that it was more left wing than the opening ceremonies in China.  I found these things to be true after having read about it and seeing the pictures. 

I believe that the original purpose of the ceremony was two-fold:

1) To get people psyched up about the Olympics.

2) To showcase elements of the native culture in order to impress and/or inform the guests from the rest of the world about their hosts.

I believe that they failed catastrophically in both regards.  The intro had very little that has anything to do with English culture or the English people.  Yes, there is such a thing as English culture, I know it’s shocking, but more on that later.  So if I knew absolutely nothing about England then here is what I would have gotten from the ceremony.  1) They think that having government controlled healthcare makes people more free and happy.  2) The industrial revolution was a bad thing that caused farmers to be oppressed, because working in a factory is evidently so much worse than working a small plot of land which does not belong to you.  3) There is no such thing as an English people, there are just lots of different people living together on an island which somehow failed to merge into one cohesive group.  4) The greatest cultural and/or literary achievments were apparently Harry Potter and Mary Poppins.  I will now address each of these points in more detail.

It was as if they were trying to make a joke out of England with the ceremony.  I cannot help but think the nationalized health care play was targetting the US, because of our ongoing national debate on that issue.  Why put that in there?  What does it have to do with the Olympics or the English people?  Nothing.  But they put left wing people in charge of planning their ceremony so getting the message across takes precedence over propriety and making sense.  Even if that stupid play makes people in other parts of the world want NHS, and even if they integrate it, what difference will it make for England?  None.  This is why I say they made fools of themselves with the ceremony, or one reason at least.

They clearly tried to slam the Industrial Revolution, which was still an inappropriate and irrelevant thing to do for an Olympic intro ceremony.  In one way it almost makes sense to give a nod to the Industrial Revolution, as England was the first country in the world to industrialize.  The IR actually began there.  But that is a bragging point, not something to knock or be ashamed of.  As dismal as it might be to work in a factory it is certainly no less free than working a small plot of land which is owned by someone else.  At least the working class gained mobility and some economic freedom, and the advances that came out of the IR created the modern world.  Even in communist countries the IR is considered a valuable achievment, although participation in factory work is truly forced in those countries, unlike in free western countries where no one has to work a job they do not with to work.  I cannot help but interpret this as ethno-masochism, which is a mental disease that seems to afflict primarily white liberals.

The cast was of course racially diverse, even though England back during the 1800′s was just as homogenous as China, perhaps moreso.  Conversely the Beijing intro utilized an all Chinese cast, while the English utilized all sorts of people in order to show diversity.  While I do not believe that having a racially diverse environment is a bad thing, I do not believe in forced or contrived diversity which is what the left wing multi-culturalist crowd is trying to do, and I cannot help but get the impression that they were trying to make it appear as though there is no such thing as the English people.  Instead they just have lots of people living on an island together, and no one has more or less of a right to be there than anyone else (according to the left).  So they project the current state of England anachronistically onto the past because to do otherwise would indicate that there actually is an English people group, and that would mean that some people are natives while others are guests.

Look at the costumes worn by the women who were introducing the athletes from each country.  Those women were supposed to represent the host country AND introduce the guest athletes.

This is the introduction of team India.  Aside from the troll who should never have been there, the women are all wearing saris, and the men have turbans.  Both of which are traditional Indian wear.  But what is the English intro woman wearing?  That is not anything traditionally English.  It’s a dress with faces, lots of different faces.  So what are they trying to say with that costume?  Clearly it is intended to be symbolic of something.  I would say they are trying to send some kind of message to the world, and it draws an interesting contrast with the Indian team behind her.  While the Indian group is all Indian, the English costume seems to be showcasing the fact that England is not all English.  Again, lots of different people living together on an island, and they think that is boastworthy.

The same contrast can be seen here.  The Syrian team looks like they are all Syrian, or mostly Syrian at least.  They even opted to introduce themselves as “Syrian ARAB Republic,” and yet, no one is crying racist.  What if England were introduced as the “United White Kingdom,” or if Ireland was the “Irish White Republic.”  People would be screaming over that.  The Syrian team is a people group, the picture on the woman’s dress is a group of people.  There is a difference between a people group and a group of people, and I don’t mean to sound pedantic or racist, but I am sick to death of this ethno-masochism and oikophobia from the left.  There is nothing wrong with recognizing that our race exists, and that within that there exists distinct people groups which formed nations and have accomplishments which are of value.  White liberals constantly give off the impression of being ashamed of theirselves, and then those of us who aren’t ashamed of ourselves get called racist.  No other race is ashamed of themselves but white people, and only western white people, and liberals are responsible for spreading those sentiments.  The liberals have had an influence which is grossly disproportionate to their numbers.  They are like a small rudder which steers a big ship… into an iceburg.

Now if they wanted to show diversity in a way that they could be proud of they could have celebrated the English Empire.  It used to be said that the sun never sets on the English Empire, and that was true at one point in time.  If England still had it’s Empire they could represent every part of the Empire in the intro ceremony, and it would make them look powerful and diverse.  But as it is, they lost their Empire, and are now letting the 3rd world immigrate into their homeland in an unlimited fashion (which is suicidal).  That is certainly not something to brag about or showcase.  To me, it would be like a slutty woman making a show of how many men have banged her and talking about how she lets everyone bang her because she’s a bad girl and needs to be banged because that’s all she’s good for.  Any right wing people living in England who are reading this will probably be able to identify with what I am saying.

The few portions of the presentations which actually attempted to celebrate distinctly English achievments were just stupid.  Not ideologically harmful, but just inane and ridiculous, and which showcased things which do not deserve to be showcased.  They had a giant effigy of a Harry Potter villain, and a group of Mary Poppins’.  Both of which are for children, and neither of which are particularly artful or profound from a literary perspective.  They could have showcased Tolkien, which has a large fanbase all around the world and which has touched so many lives.  Or they could have showcased CS Lewis, which was also children’s fantasy like Hairy Potsmoker, but it was well written and carried a good message.  Of course CS Lewis is out of the question as far as the cultural Marxists are concerned because he’s too Christian.  But another way to go would have been to showcase Shakespeare.  The selections they chose trivialize English culture.

But this is what happens when cultural Marxists are in charge.  As impossible as it sounds, they are proud of being ashamed of themselves.  Debasing their own race, culture, and their former religion makes them feel enlightened and morally superior, and their taste in art is also warped.  The contemporary sections or art museums are full of junk. Twisted hunks of metal which look like nothing but which liberals love attaching all sorts of symbolism to, and occasionally perverted displays like “Pisschrist.”  Mocking the sacred, and dragging it through the refuse.  Scatophilia combined with blasphemy.

The closing ceremony appears to have been just as ridiculous.  I watched only about five minutes of it, but that was all I could take.  I don’t know what African tribal dancers has to do with England or the olympics, but it was embarassing to watch.  My background is mostly Irish and Slavonic, and my family has been living in the US for three generations prior to my birth, but I still felt embarrassed for the English people by their ceremonies.  The situation was akin to watching a relative or a close friend make a fool out of himself in front of strangers.  I can only imagine how marginalized the English patriots must have felt by their own culture not being represented in the ceremony, and how embarassed they must have felt by the mockery that was made out of England. 

If I had just turned on my TV during the closing ceremony without knowing anything about the Olympics I would never have guessed that I was looking at England, and I would have had no clue as to what culture was supposed to be represented or even if a culture was being represented at all.  It just looked like a chaotic fest of random carnality. 

So there has been another shooting, this time at a Sikh temple.  The suspect was described as a white male (anytime it is a white male he is immediately listed as such by the LM) in his early 40′s, who happened to be former military.  For the left wing this is the perfect incident because not only was the suspect a white male, but he was former military, and both of those are groups which Janet Napolitano and the left in general are trying to establish as domestic terrorists.  He was also apparently involved with white supremacist groups, primarly a band he started.  At present the name of the suspect is being withheld, and the suspect was also shot on the scene, so there is no way to find out what he was thinking at the time, but I can probably guess.

The shooter had a 9/11 tattoo on his body, as well as many others.  Apparently Sikhs have been harrassed since 9/11.  Why?  Because there are a lot of stupid people who mistake them for Muslims.  Male Sikhs are actually more conspicuous than Muslims because of their turbans and beards:

There are stereotypes about Indians and stereotypes about Muslims which are incorrect.  The incorrect stereotype about Muslims is that they are a race which all have similar looks.  They are not, and they do not.  There are, unfortunately, Muslims of every race.  The most densely heavily populated Islamic country in the world is actually Indonesia, and they look nothing at all like Arabs.  There are also a good many Muslims in China.  A Chinese or Indonesian Muslim could come to the US and walk around freely without anyone suspecting that he is a Muslim.  But a caucasoid with an olive complexion and a beard is pretty much automatically branded as Islamic.   The idea that Muslims can be identified by their looks is asenine.  They cannot be, unless they are wearing their traditional Islamic outfits, and even then, it is primarily the women who can be identified over the men because male costuming varies among them.  But even so, the Sikh traditional outfits and styles are different from any Islamic style, and any educated person should know that.

The stereotype about Indians is that they all have to look and talk a certain way.  The best example of the stereotype is that Apu character from the Simpsons.  Most people in the US do not know that there are also Indians with light skin, and some even with different colored eyes and hair.  Also, there is no such language as “Indian.”  In fact each state has a different language, most of which are not mutually intelligible, and some states have multiple indigenous languages.  I realize this is a difficult concept for most people here to grasp, but there are many countries with multiple indigenous ethnic AND sometimes racial groups.  Look at our Native Americans.  There isn’t a “Native American” language that all of them speak, each group has their own language.   

I believe that Muslims were actually the intended target of this shooting, and that the shooter was too stupid and ignorant to realize that he had the wrong group.  Even as patriotic as I am, I have to say that the majority of people in the US are woefully ignorant about other cultures and parts of the world.  To be fair, most people tend to know the most about their own continent, and less about others, but there are some things which SHOULD be basic knowledge.  When I was in my early 20′s I went on a trip to Spain with a group of people from the advanced Spanish classes at my university.  Back then I used to know Spanish.  The trip was for about three weeks, and out of that time three days were spend in Morocco.  On the way to Spain most of the people in the group seriously thought they were going to a South American type country full of mestizos.  After we got there most of them changed their minds, but there were a few people who still insisted that it was a non-western country, and they were asking stupid questions like “is it safe to drink the water?” and “have they westernized yet?”  On the way to Morocco the others in the group were expecting to be going to some negroid country.  So on the way down most of the group was singing “African” songs.  Of course, they did not actually know any African songs, so they sang songs from “The Lion King” and then they sang that song called “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.”  So they thought they were going to some safari with lions and elephants, and with black Africans living in grass huts.  I was the only person aside from our expedition leaders who was not surprised when we got there.  I was so ashamed of those people that I wandered off alone from them as much as possible.  I was thinking that if people in other parts of the world don’t like Americans it is because of people like the ones I was travelling with. 

Such ignorance is inexcusable.  To a certain extent I blame the public education system, because they should be giving children at least a basic understanding of what sorts of people live in different parts of the world, but that knowledge is sorely lacking in the average person here.  Having a basic world knowledge is at least as important as having a basic knowledge of math and reading.  Having a basic world knowledge is more important than making kids take advanced algebra or calculus.  The majority of people will never again use that complex math, but they will meet people from different parts of the world for certain, so they need to be able to recognize who it is they are dealing with.  I knew that native Europeans were white, that there are non-black Africans, and that India was not a part of the Middle East when I was in the single digits age wise.  Of course, I was also homeschooled when I was in the single digits, so I was smarter than most other kids my age.

That being said, a basic knowledge of different people groups would have prevented this shooting at a Sikh temple.  Anyone who knows about the Sikhs knows that they are not Muslims and they don’t do anything hostile.  It is a case of mistaken identity by an ignorant fool.  To any Sikhs who might be reading this.  I’m sorry about what happened.  No you didn’t do anything, but my advice is that you start carrying guns because people are stupid. 

I would not support shooting up a mosque either, even though I don’t want Muslims here. 

I believe that everyone is familiar with the stance that Chic Fil-A CEO has taken on marriage, and how it has deeply offended liberals.  I do not know why liberals are surprised by that.  They have made no secret of being a Christian run business.  They play Christian music in their restaurants, and they close down every Sunday.  Expecting them to be pro-homosexuality is about as ludicrous as expecting them to be pro-Evolution or pro-Abortion.  A closer look at them may also reveal that they are supporters of Zionism and are closer to nationalism than globalism.  So I one way I fail to understand why liberals are choosing to boycott now, because their stance should have been obvious. That being said, I have nothing against liberals for boycotting.  A few years ago I decided never to patronize McDonalds again because of their pro-gay stance.  That is how the free market works.  If you dislike a business because of the services or goods they provide, or because of a stance they take, you can boycott them.  I think if the fact that McDonalds was pro-gay was more widely dissiminated then most Christians would boycott them.

In any event, when CEO Dan Cathy made his announcement it was immediately dissiminated by the liberal media so that everyone in the country knew about it in a matter of days.  At least, everyone with an internet connection or contact with people who do.  Since the liberal media is pro-gay, they naturally wanted to let all of their people (the liberals) know what was going on so they could be mobalized into action.  However, in spite of their spite, Chic-Fil-A seems to be doing as well as ever.  From approximately 11:00 to 2:00 they are packed out, with a long line of cars winding around the side of the building, and the interior of the restaurant is packed out as well.  I have never before seen a fast food restaurant so packed.  Burger King and Arbies do not get that kind of patronage. 

The liberal media has said that Chic Fil-A is in trouble for taking a “contraversial stance” on “gay marriage.”  But are they really?  No not really.  First of all, being an advocate of traditional marriage is not contraversial.  It is part of traditional American values which, even though the morals here are in a sad state, most of us still believe.  It is the concept of “gay-marriage” which is contraversial.  The LM is trying to make the news rather than report it, and as usual they are weaving editorial content into news articles.  Second, liberals scream loudly so that people think they have more of a voice than they really do.  Especially the extreme liberals.  Maybe about 1% of the total US population is gay.  As for the amount of the population which is sympathetic for the gay cause, I would say it is a good deal less than half.  In every state where “gay marriage” comes up for a referendum vote it is voted down, even in notoriously left wing states like the Peoples Republic of California. 

That being said, I don’t think Chic-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, or any of them, should back down from their arguments on gay marriage.  It is not going to hurt business, and even if it did, it is too late to do anything about it.  The toothpaste is already out of the bottle.  In any event, I have seen a good deal more comments on the Yahoo news where people have stated that they will now eat at Chic-Fil-A because of this than the reverse.  Even atheists and agnostics are saying they will patronize Chic-Fil-A because they are offended by the liberal attempts at brow beating.  I myself have made it a goal to eat at Chic-Fil-A at least once or twice a month now, because previously I had given up all fast food.  I was also previously offended with Chic-Fil-A for reducing the size of their sandwiches, but now I have to help out my fellow believers.  Anyways, Chic-Fil-A is good, so it is with no difficulty that I resume eating there. 

So the Greek Olympic committee has expelled triple jumper Voula Papachristou from participating in the London Olympics.  Under normal circumstances I do not really care about sports or the personal issues surrounding the athletes, but this incident has some rather heavy socio-political implications, so I feel that it needs to be addressed.  What was her crime?  Hurting people’s feelings, and having unsanctioned political views apparently:

Papachristou’s Twitter account ((at)papaxristoutj) contains several retweets and postings of YouTube videos promoting the views of Golden Dawn, a formerly marginal extreme right party that entered the Greek Parliament in the recent two national elections – in May and June this year – by polling almost 7 percent of the vote.

But it was her attempt at a joke Sunday that went viral. Commenting on the widely reported appearance of Nile-virus-carrying mosquitoes in Athens, Papachristou wrote: “With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting home food!!!”. Her tweet prompted thousands of negative comments that snowballed Wednesday.

Source:  http://sports.yahoo.com/news/greece-expels-olympic-athlete-over-133231136–oly.html

Of course, other news articles were less reserved in their criticism of Papachristou:

“Papachristou, 23, made a racist and tasteless comment on her Twitter account, @papaxristoutj, that highlighted the number of African immigrants in Greece,” writes Martin Rogers of Yahoo news. 

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics–greek-triple-jumper-removed-from-olympic-team-after-making-racist-comments-on-twitter.html

We all know, at least those of us on the right, that the media frequently tries to manipulate public opinion.  Typically they do it by picking and chosing which facts to reveal in any given story, or by presenting only one side of a conflict.  In those ways they are able to weave in their opinion without overtly stating it, but on many occasions they also blatantly state their opinion as if it were a fact.  This is one such incident.  I find this behavior both insulting and unprofessional.  Martin Rogers should receive a reprimand for sloppy and unprofessional behavior.  Calling her comment “racist and tasteless” is a value statement and an opinion.  Editorials are for opinions (which is why I never read editorials), and news articles are for news.  So is this supposed to be a news article or an editorial?  If it’s an editorial then it needs to be marked as such, if the “journalist” is upset because he has strong feelings and he is not on the editorial team then he is free to start a blog page as I have done and rant there.  A journalist has no business using a news article to tell me what to think.  It is an insult to my intelligence, and it does not in any way engage my sympathy for his position. 

That being said, I disagree that her comment was racist.  It is a fact that the West Nile Virus and the African immigrants both happen to come from the same area.  Even so, if someone is representing a business and they make statements or act in such a way that might be bad for business, then the business is within it’s rights to dismiss that person.  However, I do not agree with their grounds for dismissing her in this case.  Those grounds being that her statement was “contrary to the values and ideas of the Olympic movement,” and the concern that if she was allowed to go to London the “anti-racists” would riot.

The first statement can be immediately dismissed for rubbish, because, for example, China and Saudi Arabia are allowed to participate.  What kind of values do they have?  So letting countries participate where people can be killed for having different religious and political views, slave labor, and where people can be indefinitely detained without a trial lines up with “Olympic values,” but someone who makes a statement hinting that there are large numbers of immigrants in her country is somehow more heinous than that?  It makes no sense.

As for the “anti-racists” rioting, that is what we have police for.  If the “anti-racists” are so backwards and uncivilized that they will start destroying property and engage in violent behavior over someone having a difference of opinion, which does not even affect them, then that is their shortcoming.  It might be time to enact some strict measures on them, and consider deportation/repatriation.  Giving in to violent rabble only enourages that sort of behavior.

Voula Papachristou is a victim of Cultural Marxism.  Within Cultural Marxism it is acceptable to call negative attention to some groups but not others.  If she had made a negative comment about Christians, white people, or Israel then her comment would not have even made the news, and she would most certainly have kept her job. Why?  Because those groups are not granted protective status by the Cultural Marxists.  Cultural Marxism, of which political correctness is a part, is not “anti-racist.”  It is anti-Christian and anti-white, which is why they continually villify those groups while giving the depredations of Islam and other backward cultures a free pass. 

But to be fair, Voula’s comment did not even portray black Africans in a bad light.  All it did was remind people that there were lots of Africans in Greece and that they come from Africa.  People need to be less sensitive.  A comment like that about white people would have gone unchallenged.  I believe the Cultural Marxists were angry with her because she called attention to the proverbial elephant in the room.  If there is a problem with too much immigration in Greece then ignoring it will not make it go away, and my understanding is that the Greek economy is already depressed enough without having to absorb hordes of unskilled workers.  But the Cultural Marxists do not want people to be aware of what they are doing.  Their ultimate goal is to destroy western civilization.  They have taken a two pronged approach to it.  One part involves attacking the culture itself through rhetoric, in order to make people ashamed of their culture, religion, and roots.  The other part involves flooding out countries with unmitigated 3rd world immigration from cultures which are not compatible with our own until we become extreme minorities in our own countries.  They are trying to do it a bit at a time, like boiling a frog slowly, so when someone dares to speak about the elephant in the room they have to be quickly put down and made an example of. 

I wanted to say a few words about the shooting that occured in Colorado during a showing of the Batman 3 movie.  It is quite understandable that people are getting hyped up over this, but not all of the reactions to this tragedy are good. 

First of all, I never planned on going to see that movie, because I thought the first two were just mediocre.  I like most of the animated features which DC releases, but I have been consistently disappointed with the quality of their movies.  That being said, even after this shooting I would still go and see the movie if it was something that I wanted to see.  I believe that the odds of this happening again are low.  Supposedly the cops are going to study the Batman comics in order to “understand the mind of the killer” or some such rot.  To be fair, it is worth noting that the cops are in the dark, because so far no motive has been established, and no drugs or medications were involved.  The fact that he went into a Batman showing to choose his victims is the only lead they have as to his motives.  But to me, and anyone familiar with Batman, the idea that his shootings were somehow inspired by Batman are ridiculous.  It is a well established fact that Batman hates guns.  He carries around a multitude of devices in order to avoid having to use guns.  He doesn’t even like to touch guns.  I have also never seen him kill anyone no matter how much they had it coming (although that doesn’t mean he never has). 

To suggest that Batman inspired the killings is asinine.  If anything he may have chosen a theater where Batman was playing because he knew it would be packed out, or he may have chosen it at random.  I say “may” because we really have no idea what the story is behind this guy.  We know that he was a succesful neuroscience student, and that there was no history of drugs or psychotic episodes, neither was there any evidence of medication abuse or withdrawal involved.

My theory is that this whole incident was staged by the Obama administration, or by one of the international left wing groups that pulls his strings (like the Buildaburgers or Free Masons).  It is far too convenient that a mass shooting like that occurs at the same time as the Obama administration is considering signing a UN gun ban treaty.  If Obama signs the treaty, it would certainly kill his reelection campaign, unless something happens to make people more open to it. 

Usually when killings occur there is a motivation.  Sometimes it’s a sane person with an emotional or ideological motivation, and sometimes it is a lunatic with an irrational motivation, but sane or insane, there is always a motive.  The Virginia Tech shooter was insane.  He was an autistic guy who recently got off his meds, but he still left a note before he did it.  Anders Brevig, the mass shooter in Norway, was politically motivated.  He made his motives very clear, and has spoken of them freely since his incarceration.  As of yet, no one has been able to discover what motivated James Holmes, nor have they been able to prove his insanity. 

Of course liberals have already used this tragedy as part of their ongoing campaign for gun control.  I have found that liberals fall into two basic categories, the leaders and the followers.  I would say that the gross majority of liberals are followers, and the leaders are their politicians/rulers (not every left wing government comes to power through elections).  The followers have a variety of motivations which cause them to be liberal or to view things in a certain way, most of them emotional, but the primary motive of the left wing leadership is power and control, or control as a means to power.  When a problem or presumed problem occurs, the liberal followers generally latch onto whatever solution their leaders propose. 

There is a right wing solution to mass shootings and criminal activity.  A right wing solution would be to require everyone to carry guns.  Penn Jilette has proposed that all women be required to carry pink guns in their purses.  This would do a great deal to prevent robbery and rape.  Criminals are far less likely to rob someone in a neighborhood where everyone has guns.  Why?  Because criminals prefer easy victims, and if the victim has a gun then that equalizes things, and if there are other citizens around with guns then that makes the situation hopeless for the criminal.  A mass shooter will not be able to get far if he tries to gun down a room full of armed people.  He might get off a few shots but he will receive many more in return.  Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not going to deter criminals, in fact it will encourage them as their pool of potential victims will be enlarged.

There is a reason why the founding fathers created the second ammendment.  Liberals like to argue that there is no reason why a citizen should be able to have an assualt rifle or the same quality of equipment that the army has, but the truth is that that is exactly what the founding fathers intended.  During the colonial period each household had their own weapons, which was what they used to fight off the English during the American Revolution.  If they had no weapons or if there had been a huge technology gap between what they had and what the English army had then there would be no USA.  But that is exactly why the left wing leadership wants gun control (the followers want it because they all want a nanny state, and because their leaders say it is good).  The left wing leaders would rather confiscate guns from law abiding and patriotic citizens because they are afraid that they might be forcefully removed from power as the English were.  They are not bothered by the fact that criminals will still be able to get guns from the black market because they are not a threat to their power or person.  They are plenty safe enough with all their body guards, but it would hurt them if they were forcibly removed from power.  If that happened, then they would never be allowed back into government and they would have to get real jobs and actually work for their survival.  There are no words to describe the joy I would feel over watching them have to work for a living rather than living off of tax money and donations.

Whenever I see liberals talking about taking away all guns, or claiming that the world would be a better place with no guns then I have to ask them if we are talking about ALL guns, or all the guns of law abiding citizens.  If we are talking about just the guns of citizens then that is a terrible idea.  No one would be able to fight against a police state if that occurs.  When I was young I watched some movies and documentaries about the Holocaust.  I remember once asking my teacher why no one jumped off the trains when they were being taken to the prison camps.  I do not remember what answer the teacher gave me, I just remember that it was unsatisfactory.  It may be that they had no idea what they were in for so they thought it would be easier not to fight or run, but now that we have seen what happened to them, it just goes to show what could happen to any of us.  I would rather be shot then taken to a prison camp where I have to starve to death (at best) or where I may be tortured and used in experiments.  So how do we resist a thing like that if we have no guns? 

Now, if no one in the world had guns then the world may or may not be a better place.  I think from a moral perspective close quarters combat is better than distance combat because distance combat is impersonal, and it makes killing too easy.  If you are going to fight and kill you should see who it is that you are fighting and have to work for it a little.  If you do not have the stomach for that then perhaps your cause is not just and you have no business fighting.  I already own a few melee weapons, so if there were no guns then I would have a considerable advantage over most criminals.  I would actually prefer it that way, because with my ADD it is quite possible that I could blow off a large chunk of my body or kill myself on accident with a gun.  I would have to take a good deal more precautions than the average person when dealing with a gun, whereas the odds of accidentally harming myself or someone else with a sword are a good deal lower.  However, in the modern world we have to have guns, because if one side has guns the other side needs to have them in order to survive.  There is no way we can go back to a time before guns unless another disaster like the Biblical flood occurs.

The Democrat led California senate voted 21 to 13 in favor of slitting their own throats.  At first, they thought maybe they would just cut themselves in an emo sort of way, but then they felt some inspiration and decided that it’s best to go all the way and cut their throats from ear to ear. 

Of course I’m being a bit hyperbolic, or metaphorical, but what I’m talking to amounts to about the same thing as a throat slitting, except that it won’t be as instantaneous as a traditional Islamic style throat slitting.  What I am talking about, is the California anti-Arizona Immigration Bill.  The Peoples Republic of California now has a law that prevents cops from performing status checks on immigrants, or referring illegal immigrants to immigration officials for deportation.  So basically, cops in California are not allowed to do anything about illegal immigrants, and as those communities grow they will become harder to police. 

I really don’t understand why the government of California is doing this, even if they are irrationally angry over what Arizona is doing.  To me, it would be like smashing my head into some bricks because I got angry over something my neighbor did.  There is nothing in the world that will cause me to punish myself because someone else did something I consider disagreeable.  To me this is as dumb as those Buddhist monks who lit themselves on fire in southeast Asia to protest their government.  I know that a lot of liberals feel that white people need to be punished, and I know that they hate America, so that is probably where the motivation for this comes from.

So we can expect California to be flooded with even more illegal immigrants now.  If it were just California, then I honestly would not care.  There are just two problems I have with what California is doing:

1) The illegals will not just stay in California, they will use it as a gateway to get into other parts of the US.

2) Even if they do stay in California, they will still be a burden to tax payers all around the country as 70% of Mexicans get on welfare when they come.

This is why we need to have secession and just cut California off completely.  The fact that Arizona is pulling one way, and California is pulling another blatantly demonstrates that we are not one united people.  Rather than struggling between ourselves over who should rule over everyone, who we should let into our country, what we should make citizens pay for with their tax money, and whether or not marriage is a God ordained institution, we should just split.  It is long past time to split. 

One of the best things that the English did was split India and Pakistan apart.  North Indians and Pakis are the same race, just like white conservatives and white liberals, but the gap between them in terms of culture, values, and beliefs is enormous.  So the fact that we have different states deliberately opposing one another and pulling in different directions is something I welcome.  Let us split up and go our separate ways.  Nations are composed of people, not political boundaries drawn on a map. 

We can have our countries, and they can have theirs.  We can have our countries with limited government, limited immigration, and a family oriented social structure, and they can have their strong invasive governments and unlimited immigration.  It is the perfect solution which would make both parties happy.  Or at least, it will make us happy.  After a while the liberals will probably want to escape the 3rd world barbarian horde that they let in, as well as the moribund economy they created, but that won’t be out problem.