In case I have not stated so before, I do spend some time on youtube.  OK a lot of time.  Youtube is probably the racist capital of the internet, because it gets racists of every persuasion together where they can harass and pick at eachother to no end.  Not just racism but also ethnic strife.  For example, it was through youtube that I found out how Somalis and Ethiopians had a profound hatred of eachother.  At any rate, I myself have also been harrassed by some hard core idiots on there so I am going to take a moment to blow off some steam.  I have addressed the idiots directly, but I want give a rundown of them here as well, no names will be mentioned.

Black Supremacists

Afrocentrism:

I got attacked by some Afrocentrist girl from east Africa (a.k.a. the Horn of Africa) for stating that most white males in the US actually prefer Asian women over white women.  I don’t know what that has to do with her or why she took offense to it given that she was neither white nor Asian, but it didn’t take long for her to go into a rant about how Africa is “the black continent” and the Egyptians and Berbers are not real Africans because they aren’t black.  The argument was that Arabs migrated in in droves, killed off most of the native black people, and bred out the rest.  OK, I have previously written an entry on Afrocentrism so I’m not going to go into a detailed refutation of Afrocentrism because I have already written an entry on it.  But here’s the thing, she was claiming that the current population of Egypt are all invaders, when I asked her to produce some historical evidence that they were not the native people or that a genocide ever occured there she responded by demanding that I produce evidence that her genocide never occured.  I tried explaining that the person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof and she accused me of lying and trying to change the subject.  When genocides occur they leave behind evidence.  Suppose an alien comes to earth who knows nothing about human history.  The immediate and most logical conclusion in the absence of empirical data ought to be that the majority population in any given area is the indigenous population for that area.  Now, if he began to suspect that the majority of people in the US were not the aboriginals then he could quickly find out that they are not by studying history.  He could read about Christopher Columbus, the Jamestown Colony, the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary war, the Trail of Tears, etc., and he could quickly learn the truth.  If he got into an argument he would then be able to point to actual historical events that occured which confirm that the majority of people in the US today are not American aboriginals.  The English are not the natives of Great Britain, the Welsh and Scotts are, and there are records of that invasion and conquest.  The same goes for Japan, and every other place where one group moves in and displaces another.  Now if someone wanted to prove that some ancient group was killed off in Egypt and replaced by another they would come up with this in terms of historical documetation: _________________________  Because it never happened.  Egypt is an old country and has always been densely populated, a killing on that scale would have been documented.  The Afrocentrist response is typically somewhere along the lines of “well there’s a great white coverup, the white people erased it all and forgot that they erased it all.”  That is an unfalsifiable tautology, and even if it were true it would still mean that the Afrocentrist beliefs are impossible to substantiate. 

In any case what actually happened in Egypt is that the invading Arabs were a minority.  They were able to take over because the Egyptians were completely reliant on the Romans/Byzantines for defense, just like the Syrians and Libyans.  So after the last Persian-Byzantine war when both powers exhausted one another the Islamic Arabs were able to invade the rest of the Middle East and North Africa without encountering much resistance.  It would be like if the US Federal government disbanded and China decided to invade all the liberal states up north that where people don’t believe in defending themselves.  Not a perfect analogy, but similar to that.  What actually happened was the Arabs set themselves up as a ruling class and initially forced very few conversions because they wanted to reap the dhimmi tax from the infidels.  It was actually a generation or two after the Arab conquest before the majority of Egyptians came to speak Arabic and follow Islam.  This is all recorded in Coptic church history.  Anyone who studied Egypt or the history of Islam will know this as well.  It’s also worth noting that there are Egyptians and Berbers with red hair, blond hair, and blue eyes.  More Berbers than Egyptians, but the point is that Arabs don’t look that way.  But I digress, back to the Afrocentrists, they display rather profound ignorance and racism, but people don’t call them out on it because they are afraid of being labled a racist themselves.  Pointing out people for being wrong, stupid, and hateful is not racism, it’s fact checking.  I will continue to correct idiots, no matter what race they are, how obnoxious and loud mouthed they are, and regardless of whether or not it is politically correct to do so. 

More Black Racism:

There was a video uploaded arguing that white men having romantic and sexual relations with Asian women was a result of white supremacy.  I just want everyone to read that again so that the sheer stupidity of that statement is thoroughly appreciated.  White Supremacists do not want to have romantic or sexual relations with non-white women of any kind.  Some white supremacist men still find Asian women attractive in spite of themselves, because, Asian women are attractive.  But they do not want to breed with one.  White supremacists are concerned about racial purity, they don’t want to mongrelize with anyone.  Ask any white supremacist about how they feel about race mixing and you will get an answer similar to how Christians feel about homosexuality and beastiality.  I left a comment to that effect and this fool decides to argue with me.  This person was a black female, and she goes on about how racist white men have degraded non-white women for 500 years by sleeping with them and raping them.  White men raped black African women and Native American women, deliberately impregnated black female slaves in order to sell them off, etc., and had sexual flings with Asian women.  She referred to all of these behaviors as white supremacy and stated that the impetus behind them was that white men felt that they were better than everyone else.  As far as slavery goes, most cultures have had slavery at some point in time, and it has always been common for male slave owners to snog their female slaves.  Slavery in the US became racialized because the only viable source of slaves was west Africa just below the Sahara.  That part of Africa was full of primitive tribes always fighting eachother, so it made the perfect location for harvesting slaves.  They didn’t get slaves from North Africa (which is non-black), or East Africa because those areas were civilized, and civilized areas represented markets for manufactored goods.  Also people from civilized areas could put up better resistence, and were not necessary for manual labor. 

At any rate, I said that those behaviors may not have been nice but that doesn’t make them motivated by white supremacy.  She said that her white college professors and 500 years of history say differently.  First of all, liberal white college professors are always bashing white people, especially white males, and Jews.  They degrade white people because of they are inherently opposed to traditional western civilization and want to destroy it in favor of their communist world government where people will no longer have any sense of ethnic or national identity.  Now I often rag on the pathetic sick joke that is modern western culture, but that sickly pale mockery is not traditional western civ.  But back to the topic, just because self hating liberal college professors, or anyone for that matter, use a term like “white supremacy” as a pejorative for certain people and behaviors they don’t like does not change the fact that the term properly refers to a specific ideology.  It also does not mean that they are using the term correctly.  “500 years of history” is a vague comment intended to be used as a bluff or smoke screen to obscure the fact that no actual examples are being cited as corroborating evidence.  White supremacy didn’t exist as a concept until the 1900′s, it didn’t even begin to develop until the 1800′s with Darwinism as the main fuel.  Throughout most of western history Europeans, and other groups, used “race” as a synonym for ethnicity and nationality.  The English considered the French to be a separate race, and so on.  Europeans did not begin to think of themselves as a race until they began to be exposed to non-caucasoid peoples on a mass scale.  White men did get frisky with Native American women and Asian women but before they went to those places they were getting frisky with whtie women.  Men like to have sex, and if a man doesn’t fear God he’s going to have as much sex as he can get with anyone he finds physically attractive, or even with someone who he doesn’t find attractive just to see what it’s like.  As I stated before, white men are attracted to Asian women because of their physical and sometimes cultural attributes.  Asian women have a smaller substructure which makes them appear more thin and less likely to be fat, they also tend to have a more youthful look to them which gives off the impression of innocence and makes men think that they will age less rapidly.  That’s it.  I white supremacist won’t touch an Asian woman because he thinks that it’s morally wrong and he’s repulsed by the idea of mongrelization, but a regular white man most certainly will.  Not all white people are racists, and if a white man is bailing on white women it probably has more to do with him finding that woman compelling, or more attractive physically than white women, being tired of how white women treat him, or all three.  Seriously, I have absolutely no respect for people who spout this garbage.  They’re just racists and they need to be called out. 

The truly ironic aspect about this idiot was that her username promoted black women hooking up with white men.  No white man is ever going to take her unless he really is just some prick looking for a cheap snog.  He might snog her, but all she will have the next day is an indentation in the pillow next to her, if even that.  I told her that if she wants to be with a white man she had better curb that attitude.  So many white men are bailing on white women because they’re tired of the pushy dominating attitude that white women have most of the time.  But back to this girl, she clearly has some profound issues with white men, and men in general.  Seems to love them and hate them, but men can also read between the lines, and will translate her hit lines as, “I really hate you, but I find you pyhsically attractive in spite of myself so won’t you please come over here and put your head beneath my foot?”  No one is going to put up with that mess for long, and if black men don’t want her I don’t know why she thinks that white men will, especially if she talks nasty about them all the time.  I think she’s upset because of the issues I mentioned in my article about race mixing.  Black women are not promoted as beautiful in the media, and since most men form the initial basis for what the consider attractive based on their mothers it is usually only black men who are interested in black women.  If black men abandon black women then it makes it harder for black women to find a man.  Now, in the case of this girl I’m guessing that she notices how white men will get tipsy over Asian women but not even notice her, so she has this pent up frustration that is turning into hatred and her liberal college professors are only making it worse because they promote hatred.  She has decided to vent her frustrations over being left out in the cold against white males rather than Asian females or black men.

White Supremacists:

White supremacists are the other group that gives me trouble, sometimes I get harrassed by both groups at the same time.  I have noticed that on youtube mentioning preferences in women are all that is necessary to get attacked.  Jealousy and racism factor together to make people more rude, stupid, and obnoxious. 

English Racist:

There was some English guy on youtube who decided to go around harrassing some Indians.  He went on about how Indians were ugly and stupid (even though the women he was harrassing were very attractive), accused them of incest, mentioned the old practice of women burning themselves after the husband died, etc.  He also made statements about how the English had to teach them how to be civilized, and how they had a high frequency if microcephaly because of incest.  To be fair, if all one ever saw was the sorts of Indian people who work in gas stations I could understand coming to the conclusion that Indians are not attractive.  But outside of the gas stations there are lots of attractive Indian women, and they have a pretty decent supply of them over in India.  India won the Ms. World competition, more than once I think.  Now, I personally do not have anything against England, I like Dr. Who, some of my favorite authors are English, but I do not think that English people are in a position to sharply critique the physical appearance of others based on what I have seen of their celebrities.  English celebrities range typically from ugly to medium.  American celebrities range typically from medium to attractive, and Indian celebrities typically range from somewhat attractive to very attractive.

Don’t believe me?  Check this out:

That having been said, by looking at the English celebrities and watching BBC programming there are only a few possible conclusions.  Either they have a serious dearth of attractive women over there, or they don’t have a very strong beauty concept.  If they do not have a strong beauty concept it may be because they have a serious dearth of attractive people.  I could go further and generalize about English having fangly teeth, but I don’t want to be quite as rude as my opponents.  I don’t think the fangly teeth stereotype is necessarily a valid generalization either.  But as for the incest, it’s funny because all the royal families of Europe were inbred, and Charles Darwin, a great hero and inspiration for many white supremacists, actually married his cousin and produced a variety of weak and retarded children. Oops. Indians are a mixed race group (fusion of Aryan, Dravidian, and some Mongoloid depending on what part of the country you’re talking about), which means that they are going to have a broader gene pool than a racially homogenous group.  They also have a much larger population which decreases the frequency at which accidental endogamous marriages can occur, and allows more leeway for deliberate endogamous marriages.  A wider gene pool is a healthier gene pool, and India has a much wider gene pool than England.  Due to the efforts of left wing politicians in England the UK has been flooded with 3rd world immigration (an attempt to erase the national ethnic identity), and interracial mixing is on the rise there but based on what I have seen it’s done nothing to improve the looks of any of the parties involved. 

Anyways, this fool tried to argue with me and finally he got angry and criticized me for having a preference for Indian women, to which I responded that they are a whole lot better than his slutty women.  Ugly, slutty, and pushy is not a winning combination.  Yes I know that there are some English women who are both beautiful and virtuous, but not nearly as many as there are Indian women.  I’m just generalizing not making absolute statements.

Dumb Racist Atheist Girl

So this dumb racist atheist girl decides to attack me because of a comment I left on a video about white men and Asian women.  I don’t even remember what I said originally, but she was a white woman angry about white men abandoning her for Asian women.  She went on about how Asians were ugly and inferior, and white people were the best.  I can understand how a white woman might have a vested interest in promoting white women for white men, or whatever type of man she wants, but the way she went about it was really pathetic.  And a pushy dominating woman of any race is a huge turn off.  I said something along the lines of there being a reason why white men are abandoning white women.  She went on to criticize the physical parameters of Asian women emphasizing how white women were superior.  So I went to her page to see what she was about, and she had some video up criticizing Christians and “religion” in general.  So I responded to her and in my comment I stated that I would never consider giving her a chance because she’s an atheist.  Apparently I caused her a bit of rage with that remark and she made a comment about how “religious” people are so stupid that I should go ahead and f*** an Asian woman anyways.  I told her that I was only interested in quality relationships, which means marriage and family, and that I would go wherever I have to go in order to get that.

I am not interested in extramarital sex, and that is the problem with the majority of white women.  The concept of marriage and family has been destroyed in most white cultures, and white women tend to spread their legs before they get married.  A woman who isn’t a virgin has no worth to me, at least not as a wife.  I am willing to associate with a non-virgin woman as a friend, or as a work associate, or have one wait my table at a restaurant, check out my groceries, etc., but such a woman is not wife material for me.  And being a virgin because one is not physically attractive is like never having stolen anything because one was born without hands.  If a store doesn’t have what I want, then I’m not going to shop there.  Also, a lot of white women are pushy and dominating.  They want to be in charge, even though once they do get to be in charge they aren’t happy because they instinctively know that the man is supposed to be in charge but they’re in denial of that fact.  Many also have no concept of saving money, wasting money on stupid things like having 200 pairs of shoes and buying new outfits for us to notice even though we never do. 

But back to this racist atheist girl, the fact that she would assume that the entire focus of my interest in women is sex just goes to show what a warped concept of propriety and a lack of morals she has.  Sex is for after marriage, and marriage is primarily about relationships and family, although sex is certainly a part of it.  If I was a white supremacist then I would worship the white womb even though the white vagina is a bit saggy.  I would also not be a Christian so I probably would not mind marrying an atheist, assuming I was even interested in marriage.  As it is, I am able to be more objective about women and I hold them all to the same standards.  I don’t lower my standards for white women just because they are white.  As it is, I would also never consider marrying outside of my religion, and how an atheist think she can talk down at me is beyond my comprehension.  The way I see it is that someone who seriously thinks that they are descended from a rock, or that everything just popped into existence completely on it’s own has no room to ridicule the beliefs of others.  Whether we are talking about basic intelligent design or something like Laozi coming out of the womb as an old man (which I actually think is foolish).  Anyone who thinks they are descended from a rock has a deficient thought process.  I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid, and part of me wonders if some of that stupidity might not be genetically linked.  I have slipped out of Christianity before on some occasions, and I had doubts about the Bible, the afterlife, etc., but I never crossed over into atheism even in my darkest times of unbelief because it is not logically tenable.  It’s too much of a tall order. 

If having a white man is so important to this racist atheist girl, she might consider curbing that attitude and getting on a weight loss program while she’s at it.  Most strait men don’t want to be with a dominating woman, or “partner.” 

Anyways, that’s all I have to say.  Most of my friends in real life are actually either white or black.  I just don’t like racist people.  And yes, I know that not all white women are either ugly or slutty, I’m just making generalizations based on personal experience.  Just generalizations, not absolute statements.  I don’t hate any particular race and I don’t hate myself, I just hate stupidity and I’m not afraid to call it out regardless of who might get their feelings hurt.  People should learn to be less sensitive. 

I have talked about the issue of race mixing before, but I wanted to take a moment to discuss it in a more sociological and less philosophical context.  The main thing that spurred me to revisit this issue was a black womens magazine I found at work.  Normally I cannot stand womens magazines of any kind, and in general the only magazines I ever touch are either “Popular Science”, or Creation Science magazines like TJ, however, since the front of this magazine advertized an article about interracial relationships I decided to read it (just the article).  I don’t remember exactly what the magazine was called (“Sister to Sister” maybe?), but I wanted to see what they had to say since all of my relationships have been interracial relationships. 

Being a white male I wasn’t really part of the target audience, so some of what they said was applicable to me but much was not.  The article stated that there were right and wrong reasons for being in an interracial relationship and preceeded to list many of them.  Some of the right reasons listed were; a natural attraction based an another individuals physical and psychological attributes, a desire to experiment, and a desire to maximize one’s options.  The wrong reasons they gave differed based on gender.  For black men they stated that a desire to avoid black women for having a pushy nature was wrong, seeking to elevate one’s social status was wrong, and trying to deliberately spite white males was wrong.  The article cited emotional detritus from slavery as a motivation for seeking out white women.  For black women the desire to escape alleged depredations of a relationship with black men was cited.  Some gender neutral incorrect motivations were listed as well, and those included a desire to have children which were less black and/or children with an exotic look.  The author emphasized that the desire to escape a problem (real or presumed) was wrong, and in the case of those motivations it is better to stay within one’s own race and face the problems (in an effort to solve them?).  I disagreed rather sharply with that, because my view is that if a store doesn’t have what I want then I’m not going to shop there.  If a store is extremely unlikely to have what I want and another is extremely likely to have what I want then I am certainly going to bypass the store which is less likely to have what I want in favor of the one that does.  Of course, more likely than not their advice was never intended for me as I am not black.  Anyways, more on that later.

The article stated that there has been a recent increase in interracial marriage and relationships.  They did not bother to cite any studies but it is something that I see a lot.  The most common types of interracial couplings in the US seem to be a black male with a white female, and a white male with an Asian female.  With men, the first idea of what constitutes physical attractiveness is based upon early childhood impression of their mothers.  Their mother forms the initial basis for what they consider to be physically attractive, typically.  As they get older their ideas will be influenced, altered, refined, etc., by personal experiences and social pressures.  Parameters for what a man considers physically attractive may widen or become more narrow over time.  Sometimes what a man is willing to accept is wider than what he finds attractive. 

Black Men & White Women

As far as black men go, I have often heard emotional and social detritus from slavery cited as a motivating factor, but personally I do not know how much of that is true in actual fact vs. bluster since slavery ended over a hundred years ago.  Among some black men a desire to “stick it to the man” is a motivating factor, but certainly not among all.  I think that the main reasons are as follows:

1) A desire to elevate one’s social status.  A white woman is a prize because not all white woman want to be with a black man, and having one can elevate a black man’s social standing among his peers.  “Look what I did that you guy’s can’t.” 

2) The desire to be with a more compliant woman.  Whether it is justified or not, black American women have a reputation for being abrasive and controlling, and no one can be blamed for wanting to escape that. 

3) Social pressures from the mainstream culture.  Black American culture is a subculture within a greater more general macro culture.  The term “African American” is a misnomer, as the black Americans had their orignal African cultures obliterated during the slavery era.  Most of their culture is drawn from white western culture, it is no longer African.  Furthermore, not everyone indigenous to Africa is black, and the black Americans do not even speak any African languages.  However, black American culture has acquired custom elements which give sufficient grounds to warrent it’s designation as a sub-culture.  In any case, the mainstream entertainment has a heavy influence on beauty concepts as it is always trying to depict a beauty ideal.  In the case of the US the beauty ideals depicted by the mainstream culture are caucasoid and mongoloid.  I say “caucasoid” rather than “white” because mixed race women such as Jessica Alba and Angelina Jolie are also trumped up as ideal beauty standards.  Those women have brown skin but they still have caucasoid features.  At any rate, the beauty ideals being marketed by the media and intertainment industry will inevitably influence many men, including many black men.  Women with strong negroid features are not included in the beauty standards being peddled. 

When black men date non-black women it creates a huge problem for black women.  Especially considering that there is a numerical shortage of black men to begin with.  As I stated before, most men form their initial parameters for determining physical attractiveness based on their mothers and the types of looks being peddled by the mainstream culture are caucasoid and mongoloid.  Those factors make it difficult for black women to make inroads with non-black men, but added to that is the fact that there is no increase in social status attached for a white or Asian man who dates a black woman.  In fact in such a situation the opposite is more likely to occur.  This is not to say that it is impossible for black women to date a non-black man, just more difficult.  Considerably more difficult than it is for black men.

For additional information see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKj5TMelV5o&feature=related

White Men & Asian Women

It is probably safe to say that most white men are attracted to Asian women.  I have encountered very few white men who did not like Asian women.  To a certain extent the reasons for the attraction to Asian women are similar to why black men are attracted to white women. To be fair, most white men are not interested in Asian women exclusively.  Given that, I think that in the case of white men and Asian women, mainstream culture plays a bit less of a role than it does with black men and white women because white women are also promoted as being beautiful.  I believe that the role mainstream culture plays between white men and Asian women is that of giving a stamp of approval rather than providing encouragement.  In the early 1900′s interracial marriage in the US was condemned simply for being interracial, but that is no longer really the case for most of society, especially not among the entertainment industry and media.  I believe that the reasons behind white male-Asian female couplings fall into two basic categories:

1) Physical:  Most men are initially drawn to a woman by her physical appearance.  Asian women may not look exactly like the early childhood beauty standards (mom), but they have their own kind of beauty.  The fact is Asian women tend to have a more youthful appearance which gives the impression that their beauty will last longer, and it also makes them look more innocent (even if they aren’t).  Asian women tend to have a more narrow substructure, which makes them appear less likely to get fat.  They also typically have smooth glossy hair which is attractive (especially when long), and that is also something which many white women wish to attain.

2) Cultural:  This is really only applicable to Asian women who were born in a non-western country (FOB).  Eastern cultures have a different concept of propriety regarding male-female relationships.  The idea is that an Asian woman will be more considerate and respectful towards a man since they are more family oriented and conservative.  However, sometimes this backfires as there are some Asian women who are aggressive and seek out white men in order to have a man who is easier to push around. 

* Social status is a factor in some cases but not all.  In cases where social status is attached to dating an Asian woman it stems not so much from a concept of moving up the proverbial food chain or that Asian women play hard to get.  Most Asian women are willing to give white men a chance, but the fact of the matter is that Asians are still a minority in western countries, so there are not enough of them to go around.  An Asian woman can go through white boyfriends like a kid through a bowl of Skittles but the reverse is certainly not true.  The rareness increases their desireabilty in some cases.   

Personal Experience:

When I was in my teens I used to be strongly opposed to race mixing.  My parents didn’t raise me to be that way, quite the opposite, but I got to be that way in my teens through the influence of surging hormones that I did not yet know how to deal with and factors I was exposed to in the Public School system.  I spent most of my childhood in an area that was almost completely white, so race mixing was a distant rumor.  Then we moved, but I went to a private school where everyone was mostly white for my middle school years.  My middle school years were a nightmare where I had to deal with continual physical and verbal assaults, culminating in the effect that I was always on my guard like a caged animal brought in from the wild, and I tended to expect the worst from people.  Eventually I was dumped into a public school that was very diverse, and had a high volume of black and Mexican students.  There were also a fair number of Asians, and a few Indians and Middle Easterners.  I didn’t know how to process or deal with all that diversity, and in the meantime I had raging hormones and a budding sex drive to also worry about.  It seemed like I was no longer part of an overwhelming majority but just one group among many others.  I also found out that most of the other white kids were mixed (part something else), which made me rare and unique by comparison.  So I resented what I took to be competition for a limited and dwindling resource.

It took me a few years to realize that I could be with a non-white woman, and then I no longer cared who dated who as long as I got what I needed.  The first girl I dated was a white/Native American hybrid.  I was never interested in finding someone like that, but it just happened.  We started talking and decided that we enjoyed eachother’s company, and I found that rather than making excuses to be with her I was in the position of making excuses not to.  Of course, that relationship turned out to be defunct later, but to me the top priorities are to find someone who is attractive and intelligent, and who shares my beliefs and values.  If I marry someone who I find attractive, then I won’t mind her looks being passed onto the children, regardless of what race she is. 

Conclusion

I understand that not everyone looks the same, so there will be some types of looks that one finds more personally agreeable than others, however, at the very least it is good to be open to dating more than one race.  Otherwise you might be a white man upset with black men, or an Asian man upset with white men for creating an offset.  I have seen many Asian men vehemently angry at white men for dating Asian women.  The fact of the matter is, if a black man takes a white woman then somewhere along the line a white man has to go without.  When a white man takes an Asian woman then there is some Asian man who is going to go without.  I can understand the anger, although I no longer agree with it, because I was there once.  But the anger stems from the fact that you are unwilling to compensate for the offset by seeking out a different type of woman.  Being interested exclusively in one race or ethnicity of women increases the odds that you probably will not get one.  The best way to acquire female companionship is to have a plan and a backup plan.  There are lots of white women willing to give Asian men a chance, and failing that there are also Amerindian women, Indian women, etc.  If you are just going to be racist and put your foot down about not dating any other races then you’re only hurting yourself, because I’m not going to live by those bogus rules and neither are lots of other men. 

Now, here is something else to think about.  If any black women are upset about black men leaving them (and I know they are), or if there are any white women who are upset because they think that white men are bailing on them, you both need to stop and think long and hard about why that is.  Physical appearance is partly a factor but it’s not the main factor because most men are still physically attracted to their own race even if they like other types of women as well, or better.  You have to stop and ask yourself why the men are bailing on you.  It probably has more to do with your attitude and lifestyle more than your looks, and those are things which can be fixed.  As for me personally, I have a strong preference for Indian women.  But in my case it’s not so much of a racial attraction as a cultural one.  Indians are multiracial, they’re a fusion of Indo-European and dark skinned caucasoids (Dravidian), with some mongoloid elements thrown in as well.  Some of them are mostly white while others are mostly not, but I don’t care so much about that because the impetus behind what I’m doing is to avoid the moral bankruptcy in the US.  I have approached many white women, Amerindian women, and westernized Asian women only to find out about their drinking habits, their lack of virginity, and/or a deep seated disrespect for males.  I don’t have to put up with that mess if I don’t want to.  I am avoiding certain cultural elements and pursuing others which are more favorable to me.  For other men it may be different, but there is always a reason. 

 

Ground Zero Mosque

I want to hit on multiple related issues with this entry.  First of all being the 9/11 Mosque, or the Ground Zero Mosque.  I freely admit that I was shocked and horrified when I heard that a Mosque was to be erected near Ground Zero.  The problem is that there are too many liberals in the government in NY (which will probably change as a result of their decision), something like this never would have happened in Texas.  But I digress, I was not at all surprised when people began to protest near the Mosque, but what I do not understand is why non-Moslems are protesting against the protesters?  I was further surprised at the cheek the Moslems had in the name the chose for their new Mosque, “Cordoba House.”  Most Americans don’t understand the significance of that because most Americans know very little about history.  Especially the liberals, who not only fail to understand the dictionary definition of history (in general), but seem to conceptualize it as the universe building itself followed by white people being mean to everyone.  

I have been to Cordoba, and as it happens there is, or was, a mosque there.  The Cordoba mosque was built by the Moors, and following the Reconquista the Spanish converted the mosque into a Catholic Church.  For those who may not know, western European Gothic architecture is quite different from medieval Mediteranean Islamic architecture.  The Mosque was very large and very open, full of pillars and arches.  In the process of converting it into a church the Spanish walled in the arches going about the perimeter, and on the interior they created chapels by splicing in gothic style embellishments in various places which did not at all blend with the Islamic styles.  Even the stone used was a different color, so it clashes horribly.  Some people have complained about the architectural fiasco in western scholarship, but the fact of the matter is that the mosque was originally built over a church.  When the Moors invaded Cordoba, they leveled the church and built a mosque in it’s place.  This is a common practice in Islam and they have done it all over the world.  When they destroyed Constantinople they converted the Hagia Sophia (huge Greek Orthodox church) into a mosque. 

The build a mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem which is the holiest place for Jews and a holy place for Christians as well. 

Christians never built a church on the Temple Mount.  Why?  Because they could, and did, build churches anywhere, there was no practical reason for going out of the way to build a church on the Temple Mount.  For Christians the purpose behind building a church is to have a place of worship, contemplation, and community, that’s it.  The Moslems also built a mosque in India over the birth place of Prince Ram (Ayodhya), with full knowledge of the fact that it was a holy site for Hindus. 

In fact they specifically chose it for that reason.  This is what Moslems do, whenever they conquer an area they build a mosque over a culturally and/or religiously significant location in order to commemorate their conquest and rub it in the faces of the native people. 

It’s for the same exact reason that dogs urinate on trees and mailboxes.  All of the liberals and any others who seriously think that the 9/11 mosque is about “reaching out” or that it’s harmless or innocent need to stop and think long and hard.  They can begin by asking themselves “why do the Moslems feel a need to build the mosque as close to Ground Zero as they can get it?”  The second question they need to ask is “why name the mosque after one of their previous conquests?”  The problem with liberal thinking is that their prime motivations are to 1) get something for free, and 2) “stick it to the conservatives.”  So it does not enter their minds that allowing Moslems a trophy to commemorate their attack on the US might be dangerous.  To be fair, the Moslems have decided to dispense with calling the mosque “Cordoba House” but the fact that they had originally planned to do so speaks volumes about their true motives.

Burning the Koran

The second issue I would like to deal with is the Koran burning.  The Obama administration was awfully quick to pounce on Terry Jones when announced that he was planning on burning a pile of Korans to commemorate 9/11.  First of all, Terry Jones is a private citizen as are the members of his church, so if they want to purchase any items with their own money and burn them then it is not a Federal matter.  They can do whatever they want with their own resources, and the Constitution corroborates that.  Granted Obama did not publicly order the pastor not to burn the Korans (although anything may have happened behind closed doors), but would Obama even have said anything if some group were planning on burning Bibles?  People burn and desecrate Bibles all the time and it never makes the news.  Videos of Bible burning don’t even get deleted from youtube (as far as I have seen), while videos of a Koran being burnt or in some way damaged are often deleted, or, a warning is issued that the video contains offensive material.  I have some news for Obama, Youtube, and the Islamic world, burning the Koran is not offensive to non-Moslems/infidels.  The Koran is not a holy book to me, it’s just a pile of wasted paper.  Burning the Koran is not offensive, what is offensive is that a good tree was destroyed to print it in the first place.  I don’t see Obama, or any liberals, speaking out about the slave trade in Sudan, or how the Moslem northern Sudanese burn down churches in the south while shoving the pastors inside.  I don’t see them speaking out about female circumcision, stoning women for getting raped, or the slave trade which still goes on in Africa.  It doesn’t matter of Moslems are gang raping a Christian, or shoving little girls back into a burning building because they dared to run away from the fire without their ridiculous Hijab on.  But now if someone burns a Koran WATCH OUT!  The PC police are going to come get you, and the Moslems are going to issue death threats, protest, maybe blow some stuff up.  I have seen statements like this in several news articles now:

The furor over Jones’s plan — a grave insult to Muslims who believe the Koran to be the literal word of God

From Reuters By Paul Tait Paul Tait – Sun Sep 12, 11:15 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_muslims

This is also what Christians believe about the Bible, but you don’t see Christians going around threatening or killing all the depressed emo kids who burn Bibles with their cigarette lighters.  Granted, not everyone who self identifies as Christian follows the religion, like Obama, but there are not death threats on a massive scale, killings, or destruction of property.  Seriously, the Moslems need to learn civilized behavior.  In the civilized world we don’t go around killing people just because they say something we don’t like.  That sort of behavior is not conducive to an orderly society.  Moslems need to learn to be civilized or get out of our countries.  The problem is that Moslems don’t want to be a part of western countries, or India, or East Asia, they want to export their own backwards culture and drag other cultures down to the level of the Middle East or Somalia.  Islam is like a whiny little brat who goes around kicking the legs of grownups and throwing loud violent tantrums because his parents have never spanked him before. It’s time for the civilized world to spank that rotten brat rather than coddle him like some sort of innocent baby.  It’s time for our governments to stop coddling these people.  How dare they try to build a mosque near the site where they attacked us.  Moslems need to wake up and realize that not everyone in the world is going to be a Moslem, and non-Moslems cannot be expected to view the Koran as holy or Allah as real.  Most people in the world realize this about their own religion, except for Moslems.

Personally, I think that all Islamic immigration should be banned, but at the very least what I would like to see happen is for the police to stop protecting the Islamic “protesters” during their demonstrations.  That would teach them to behave real quick.  Before some liberal says “But teh Moslems might get hurt if there were no cops protecting them.”  That’s right, just like if the Christians in Egypt decided to protest about the many depredations the Islamic majority inflicts on them (forced conversions, murder attempts, rape, vandalization of churches, legal bars against repairing churches) then they wouldn’t have any police protection and their protests would undoubtedly be cut short.  It is time to start balancing the scales rather than slitting our own throats with this PC nonsense.

It’s late, and I probably should have gone to bed hours ago, but I saw that one of my friends here was called a slut so I wanted to weigh in on what I consider to be a slut. 

First of all, “slut” is kind of a subjective term but the basic meaning behind it is someone who seeks after sex outside of marriage, usually in reference to women.  I don’t know what the masculine equivalent of slut would be, perhaps whoremonger.  At any rate, given the sexual connotations of the word I never use it as a pejorative term.  Same goes for calling people racists, I never call people racists or sluts unless there is some evidence to back it up. 

For most people the threshold for the amount of extra-marital sex one must have to be considered a slut varies.  However, I prefer to be concrete, so I honestly consider any woman who has sex outside of marriage to be a slut.  I typically consider divorced women who remarry to be adulteresses because I don’t recognize divorces as legitimate except within the narrow confines specified in the Bible and most people don’t get divorced for those reasons.  Anyways back to sluts, a woman only has to have sex outside of marriage once to be a slut in my book.  There is no gray area, either someone has had sex or they haven’t.  The difference is between having been deflowered vs. not having been deflowered.  There is no in between state.  Sort of like how a soda can is either open or it’s not.  There is no in-between state between being open or closed.  When you puncture the soda lid the air hisses out and it’s open.  Before the air hisses out it’s still closed.  After the air hisses out it’s only a matter of how wide the opening is.  So to me whether the woman continues to have sex after that first encounter only determines how big of a slut she is. 

Anyways, I know that’s harsh but that’s the way I see things.  I have never had sex myself so I don’t have any sympathy for people who have, and whenever I hear the sob stories I just have even less respect for the woman.  Feeling pressured isn’t the same thing as being forced.  If the woman is walking home, gets jumped in an ally, fights and screams but still gets poked then I don’t see her as a slut because it wasn’t voluntary.  But, if the woman “had a few drinks,” or “couldn’t say no,” then she’s a slut.  Most of the time it’s not rape, and I think that a lot of the time rape accusations are just attempts to cover the fact that someone was weak minded and immoral. 

The following is not meant to be humorous although some of the items I list no doubt will be.  These are just some basic generalizations I have gathered over the years from listening to liberals and debating with them.  So without further delay, YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERAL IF…

You think that anyone who disagrees with you is racist.

You think that the Middle East will become peaceful if all the Jews lay down their weapons.

You think that Israel is a terrorist organization but Hamas and Hizballah are freedom fighters.

You compare Hamas and other Islamic terrorists to the American Revolution.

You don’t know anything about the American Revolution.

You think the Tea Party movement is something sexual.

You frequently compare interracial marriage to homosexuality.

You’re all about freedom of speech until it comes to radio talk show hosts.

You think executing murderers is wrong but abortion is OK.

You think Obama is a Christian.

You think the media is unbiased, except for Fox News. 

You think the KKK is racist but you know that the Black Panthers aren’t.

You think welfare is related to civil rights.

You think that you should be able to drink until you kill your liver and then use the government to make me (and other tax payers) pay for your transplant.

You think that being an intellectual and smoking pot are not mutually exclusive. 

You think that Christianity is a dangerous intolerant enemy but Islam is the religion of peace.

You “know” that your ancestor was an ape but you aren’t really sure whether or not that new baby is really yours. 

You’re against genocide but you think that white people need to go extinct (because the world would be better off without them).

You think that overpopulation is a “world crisis.”

You get upset about crosses being in a military cemetery but don’t mind when public funding is used to help erect a mosque.

You like the UN.

You think Obama was born in the US, because, he said he was.

You think it’s OK to have politicians you dislike portrayed as monkeys but if it happens to one you do like then it’s racist and inappropriate. 

You think the Jews provoked 9/11.

You think the way to alleviate debt is to spend more money.

 

You are anti-nationalist and think that world government is a good idea.

You are all for the Democratic process except when it comes to referendum votes that you don’t like, in which case it’s time for a judge to step in and undo the vote. 

You think that a Republican is never your president but a Democrat is EVERYONE’S president, whether they like it or not.

You read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and you think that “created” means “evolved,” you automatically replace “Creator” with “society or government,” and you like the part about everyone being equal but you think it has something to do with socialism.  “Life” obviously doesn’t extend to unborn babies and “Liberty” doesn’t cover your paycheck or investments. 

You think that a person can be racist against Islam.  

You think that the world would be safer if the only people who owned guns were in government. 

You’re confused about gender identity. 

You think that Kim Jung Il and others like him can “see reason”.

Since abortion is a perennial issue, I wanted to take a moment to write out my position on abortion and address the opposition as thoroughly as possible, but first it is necessary to discuss the concept of good and evil.  Most people feel a sense of indignation against the Holocaust, even people who actually admire Hitler.  In the case of the latter they typically deny that the Holocaust occurred.  Sometimes when engaging in discussions about morality and human nature I often mention various depredations of ancient and modern people groups.  Some examples: The Assyrians used to cover their siege craft with human skins and put meat hooks into prisoners.  Ancient near eastern cultures in general used to rip open pregnant women and watch the mother and child die.  I have many more examples of depredations, both ancient and contemporary, but the point is that most people feel a sense of indignation or revulsion when they encounter such things.  Liberals argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or moral laws, and that “morality” is determined by consensus.  If that is so then why do they feel a sense of indignation when they hear about the Assyrians?  The Bible tells us that God has written his laws into the human consciousness:

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

 ¹⁹Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 ²⁰For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:18-19.

¹⁴For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 ¹⁵Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Romans 2:14-15.

The reason people feel a sense of indignation is because they have an innate knowledge of the laws of God, which were programmed into them.  Without this, morality as a concept could not exist.  Things would not be defined as “right or wrong” but as expedient vs. inexpedient or efficiency vs. inefficiency.  There could be no concept of certain behaviors being a moral offense.  For example, if I were to tell someone that taking their shoes off prior to walking out of their house is so zarnash then they would have no idea what I’m talking about.  They might try to frame “zarnash” within the range of concepts they are capable of understanding.  They might assume that I’m talking about health or safety, or an obscure fashion trend, but they would have no idea what I was really talking about because it’s a word describing a new concept.  On the other hand, throughout all of time people have done nasty and brutal things because human nature has an element of evil in it, which is inherently at odds with the laws of God.  This is why people often feel conflicted, and probably also why people who commit acts which are spectacularly atrocious often go insane.

The arguments in favor of abortion fall into three basic categories: 1)Choice: Women should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies.  2)The baby isn’t Human, it’s a Fetus.  3)Legality & Consensus: Abortion is legal which makes it acceptable.  4)Unwanted: The child will not be able to have a good life given the circumstances so killing it is more humane.  Now the arguments:

1) Choice:

The issue of abortion is not about “women’s liberation” and opponents of abortion are not “anti-choice advocates” like some of the liberal news networks are now calling us in print.  On the contrary, we definitely support a woman’s right to make her own choices no matter how stupid they might be, but that freedom of choice does not extend to the life of another human being who has done nothing wrong.  The choice was the decision to have sex in the first place.  No one should be forced to have sex against their will, but having sex is how babies are made.  One can avoid pregnancy by timing their sexual activities, or putting something over the man’s penis so that the sperm cannot escape.  However, the best way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid sex.  Sex was made for marriage, and marriage creates an environment which is suitable for child rearing.  The best thing to do is avoid having sex until marriage, and avoid marriage until it becomes economically feasible.  By following those basic steps one can insure that pregnancy is never an inconvenience.  Becoming pregnant is one of the risks involved in having sex, if one is not prepared to get pregnant then one is not prepared to have sex.  “But I have to have sex!!!”  No, sex is not a necessity, you have to have food and water but no one dies from a lack of sex.  I am not arguing that there should be laws preventing people from having sex, but there also should not be laws protecting people from the consequences of having sex. 

As for women being able to do whatever they want with their bodies, I agree with that.  I do not support paternalistic legislation, the point of a legal system is to protect people from others not from themselves.  However, the baby is not an extension of the mothers body.  It is a unique individual from the moment of conception with it’s own genetic code.  It is true that the baby is dependent on the mother but the same is true after birth for a good many years.  So the liberal woman can have as much sex as she wants, get tattoos, a tongue piercing, shave the back of her head, cut herself, have sex until she has to wear a diaper just to keep from leaking, commit suicide, etc., but she doesn’t get to make those kinds of decisions for another person. 

2) Not Human:

Words like “fetus” and “zygote” were created in an attempt to dehumanize the unborn baby.  There were no equivalent words among ancient cultures, which were much more honest about murder than the modern liberals.  Liberals claim that the unborn child is “just a lump of cells” because they know instinctively that murder is wrong.  That is why it is essential for them to dehumanize the baby, and it is also why they get so angry whenever they see actual photos of abortions.  The fact is that the unborn baby is both alive and human.  If it were not alive it would not be growing.  Babies are made from the genetic material from their parents.  Half of the genetic information comes from the father and the other half comes from the mother.  Upon conception that material combines and reshuffles to create a new individual.  Human DNA only contains the information to code for the production of more human DNA.  Every living thing reproduces after it’s own kind.  No humans have ever given birth to a goat or a camel.  At conception the new baby does not contain the genetic information of a goat, which suddenly becomes human later on.  It’s human from the very beginning.  Furthermore, the central nervous system is the among the first things to form.  Some liberals will argue that before the brain begins to form there can be no consciousness, but that statement does not come from personal experience or scientific study.  For an adult human we do know that no brain means that no one is home, but one question science cannot answer is whether or not consciousness exists as a product of the brain or whether the brain is merely the housing.  We know that neural patterns are formed over time and through experience but they can also be formed in the complete absence of external stimuli by exercise of the imagination and thought process.  There is definitely a will and mind that exists independent of external stimuli.  People are born with unique personalities even though they have had no exposure to the real world.  But back to the issue at hand, even though the CNS is among the first things to start forming, at conception there is no CNS.  However, at conception and throughout the earliest stages of development cells in the body are generalized rather than specialized, and have the potential to become any kind of cell.  Given that, it is entirely possible that consciousness can reside in the generalized cells in a dormant state.  If there is any chance of sentience it is best to afford killing the organism until there is concrete proof to the contrary.

Here is an actual photo of an unborn baby at seven weeks:

Here is an aborted baby at seven weeks:

Small and defenseless, but still human.  Here is a baby at eight weeks:

Here is an aborted baby at 11 weeks:

Here is an aborted baby at 22 weeks:

Abortion advocates will be offended by these images because they don’t like being reminded of what it is that they are doing.  They want to think that they are aborting the babies before they begin to take on a humanoid form, but the fact is they are committing murder.

3) Legality and Consensus:

Liberals often cite legal rulings as moral justification for abortion, but legislation is not what determines whether an action is right or wrong, moral or immoral.  Either morality exists or it does not, if it exists then it exists independent of human opinions, but if it does not exist then no amount of legislation can make it exist.  Morality DOES indeed exist as evidenced by the fact that people naturally classify and qualify things as right or wrong, and by the fact that most people will be put off by these pictures. 

As for consensus, that is simply a mob movement.  When the Mongols were traveling about the world, mowing down entire cities and civilizations, taking away the cattle, the skilled workers, the attractive women, and imposing a heavy tribute on the people they left behind the general consensus among Mongols was that what they were doing was OK.  However, the general consensus among Russians was that the Mongols were bad.  Consensus can be motivated by moral outrage, but just as often it is used as a balm to salve the conscience of individuals who are going along with actions they would otherwise find morally objectionable. 

4) The Child is Unwanted

From a technical perspective the argument that the child is unwanted or will not have a good life is moot, but since it comes up so frequently I will address it briefly.  Many if not most people in the world will not have a good life, and for many people who must suffer the wrath of God for all eternity it would be better for them if they were never born.  HOWEVER, it is not up to the legal system or individuals to make that determination.  Also that does not negate the fact that a baby is being killed, nor that it is murder to do so.  It is still murder even if the child is spared a miserable life, and murder is wrong regardless of the intentions. 

The fact is, liberals want to kill their children simply because having a child is an inconvenience for them.  The child is an inconvenience because of the financial burden and/or because being pregnant will mean downtime during which it will become difficult to continuously engage in sex.  Killing people because you deem their existence an inconvenience is not justification.  Hitler thought that the Jews were an inconvenience and that they were less than human.  He had no objective scientific basis for classifying them as less than human any more than the liberals have for unborn children.  It is the same mentality that rules in both cases, dehumanizing people which you consider to be an inconvenience on psuedo-scientific grounds and then killing them off.  It is also worth noting that more babies in the US have been killed through abortion than Jews were killed off by the Nazis during the Holocaust. 

The Nazi Holocaust shown above, the modern Holocaust shown below. 

Abortion is murder, and it’s wrong.  To see some actual footage from an abortion follow this link: http://www.caseforlife.com/WMV-high.asp

I wanted to take a moment to lay out my position on immigration.  But first, a question I have often asked myself is “Why does the Federal Government refuse to close down the border with Mexico?”  For some reason the government leaves the border with Mexico as wide open as the door on a liberals bedroom, yet, on the other hand it takes a hardline stance with immigration from other places.  I read a news article which spoke on how Mexicans were planning on protesting the Arizona law while it was in trial, and the article mentioned that one of the people attending was an old Mexican woman who had been living in the US since the 80′s on an expired tourist Visa, and while here had kids and grandkids.  Two questions were immediately raised in my mind: 1) If the reporters knew that she was here illegally (expired Visa) then why doesn’t the government deport her?  2) Why was she given a tourist Visa in the first place when it’s a fact that the majority of our immigration comes from Mexico (illegal or otherwise) and Mexicans come here with the intention to stay?  People from India are not granted tourist Visas for that very reason and when Indians come here they become productive members of society and do not contribute to the crime rate.  Mexicans who come here illegally have children, do not pay taxes, or buy insurance.  They reap the, I’ll admit dubious, benefits of public education even though they seldom achieve a high level of English fluency, as well as welfare benefits at times.  If they get in a car accident with an American citizen the citizen or his insurance agency has to pay the cost of the repairs.  At some point in time this has got to stop or it will result in the destruction of our country. 

Another thing to consider is the disparity in the birthrates.  Mexico has a population growth rate of 1.118% while the US has a rate of 0.98%.  More detailed statistics are available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/region/region_noa.html
So basically Mexico can use the US as a release valve for overpopulation pressures.  Of course immigration from Mexico is not the only problem, there is a concerted effort to flood western countries with immigration from the 3rd world, whether it’s Mexicans going into the US, or sub-Saharan Africans and Pakistanis flooding into Europe.   So what is the impetus behind all of this?  What is achieved by, for example, flooding England with Pakistanis?  Why force two completely opposing cultures together?

   

Also what is the pattern?  The pattern behind it is so simple that a child ought to be able to recognize it, the left wing governments are encouraging immigration from 3rd world countries which contain cultures that are as unlike the indigenous host culture as possible, and the goal is to destroy the native sense of national identity.  The impetus behind all of this are left wing politicians who wish to destroy nationalism in order to more easily establish a communist world dictatorship. 

Now my position on immigration is quite simple.  In the current economic crisis unmitigated immigration from Mexico is an extremely bad thing.  First of all, there needs to be a complete crack down on illegal immigration with illegals being deported.  Second, the process for legal immigration needs to be tweaked.  People entering the country ought to be screened for cultural compatibility.  If the potential immigrant has zero compatibility with the host culture then they should be barred.  For example, if the candidate adheres to an ideology that says the host culture is an enemy and needs to be destroyed then they should be kept out.  This might mean that there will be no more Pakistanis in England.  Small loss there.  If the candidate is more likely to be a net drain on society than a net producer then they should also be barred.  No immigration must be permitted from people who will take more from the economy than they give because that person is just a parasite living off of the hard work of others.  Also, any immigrants should be expected to learn the host language.  There should not be generations of people living in ghettos unable to speak English, or whatever the host language might be.  If I was going to immigrate to Russia I would learn Russian, if I was going to India I would learn Hindi or Telugu.  I would jump at the opportunity to learn the language and put forth as much effort as necessary to become conversant.  That is what immigrants to the US from Europe and Asia have always done.  If a person refuses to do that then it says something about their mentality, they don’t view themselves as part of the country but exist here in order to reap the benefits of being here while contributing nothing in return. 

There is no harm in allowing immigration from people who are hard working, well educated, and civilized.  During WWII Hitler expelled some scientists who were taken in by the US and contributed a great deal here to weapons technology.  People who actually want to contribute something, are able to do so, and wish to make a life for themselves in the US may be allowed to do so without causing any harm to the economy, culture, or national character of the country.  In times of economic prosperity moderate amounts of unskilled laborers who are willing and able to work hard may be allowed in on work Visas in order to break up unions.  After a period of evaluation the unskilled laborer can be judged based on their ability to assimilate and produce.  If they are self sufficient they can stay, but if they refuse to learn English and become hostile towards the host population then they need to go.  Immigrating to the US, England, whatever, is a privilege not a right. 

What can we do?
* Make your voice heard publicly, let the world and the government(s) know of your displeasure.
* Vote for politicians who will take a hard line stance on immigration.
* Have more kids.

I found this interesting documentary on the origin of the disease known as political correctness. 

 

Hello, it has come to my attention that a lot of people on the left are referring to the Tea Party movement as “Tea Baggers.”  I would like to take a moment to set the record strait, but first, I must warn everyone that this is going to be a mature rated entry, so if you’re young and/or sensitive you might consider not reading this entry.  Now, to set things strait.  First of all, the Tea Party movement draws it’s title from the famous Boston Tea Party.  But first, I realize that a lot of leftists seem to believe the American Revolution was all about setting up a strong central government, redistribution of wealth, and “gay marriage,” so I’m going to take a moment to remind people what it was really about.  The fact of the matter is the American colonists were upset about having to pay taxes.  Throughout most of their existence they paid little to no taxes, and when the English government began laying taxes on them they were quite understandably upset.  But to keep things in perspective the taxes the English were laying on the colonists were more like sales taxes, usually on specific items, and NOT income or property taxes.  Also, the taxes they paid the English were far less in terms of real wages than what people in the US have to pay today to the Federal government.  Now back to the tea, the English government was determined to force the colonists to pay duties on the tea, so they would not allow the ships to leave American ports without unloading their cargo, so in Boston a group called “The Sons of Liberty” disguised themselves as Native Americans and threw the tea overboard at night.  This incident came to be referred to as the Boston Tea Party.  That is where the modern Tea Party movement draws it’s title, and the title is apt as the same issues are being protested against in both circumstances.  Those issues are excessive taxation and an overbearing government.  And yes, our current government is far more overbearing than the English government ever was.

So why are the liberals calling these people “Tea Baggers” and what does that mean?  Simple, they are calling them names (tea baggers and other things) because they cannot think of any intelligent counter-points or rebuttals to make.  Furthermore, many of them are also probably drawing from personal experience.  Tea Bagging (and this is the mature rated section) is a euphemism for dropping one’s testicles into someone else’s mouth.  I’m not sure whether the tea bagger is the person who drops or the person who mouths, but I do know for a fact that such deviant sexual practices are FAR more common among liberals than they are conservatives.  Now western civilization as a whole is rather rotten with sexual perversion, and I will admit that many people on the right also struggle with issues like sex before marriage, divorce, and pornography, but the left has much more.  The liberals have no concept of absolute or objective morality, they think that mob sentiment determines right and wrong.  They’re always bucking against traditional marriage with their feminism and homosexuality, while boasting about “sexual freedom” and campaigning to teach kids how to have sex in public schools.  Of course it should be noted that “sexual freedom” means having sex outside of marriage and includes putting things where they don’t go, like privates in the mouth and in other orafaces which have nothing to do with copulation.  It’s almost like they’re retarded and can’t figure out where to put things, clueless when it comes to basic anatomy.  Sort of like a slow child in the Kindergarten who keeps trying to fit a square peg through a round hole or a fork in an electric socket, who then screams whenever others try to give him guidance.  They also have their wife-swaps and free sex communities, and are far more likely to visit novelty shops and prostitutes.   Liberals are definitely the pioneers of sexual deviance. 

So basically what I am saying is that the real tea baggers are the liberals.  Not all of them necessarily but a good many, and definitely the ones who are drawing from person experience in order to craft insults.  It’s a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.  It’s also a case of liberals TRYING to be cleaver, which something else that seldom works out well. 

North Korea:

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks

By JEAN H. LEE, Associated Press Writer Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea, accused of waging the deadliest attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War, flatly denied sinking a warship Thursday and warned that retaliation would mean “all-out war.”

Evidence presented Thursday to prove North Korea fired a torpedo that sank a South Korean ship was fabricated by Seoul, North Korean naval spokesman Col. Pak In Ho told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

He warned that any move to sanction or strike North Korea would be met with force.

“If (South Korea) tries to deal any retaliation or punishment, or if they try sanctions or a strike on us …. we will answer to this with all-out war,” he told APTN.

An international team of civilian and military investigators declared earlier in Seoul that a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo at the Cheonan on March 26, ripping the 1,200-ton ship in two.

Fifty-eight sailors were rescued, but 46 died — South Korea’s worst military disaster since a truce ended the three-year Korean War in 1953.

President Lee Myung-bak vowed to take “resolute countermeasures” and called an emergency security meeting for Friday.

I would like to point out that none of this stuff happened when Bush was president.  I’m not saying that Bush was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the fact is the entire world knows that Barack Osama and the Democrats are a bunch of weak hearted sissies and they feel emboldened by that fact.  This is the first time the despots in North Korea have run their mouth so openly about “all our war” since the Korean War ended.  Shortly after Obama was elected the fascist government in Iran kidnapped a handful of American citizens from across the border in Iraq, and they did so because they knew that Obama would do nothing.  Shortly after Obama was elected two American citizens were kidnapped by the North Korean government while they were in China, and, Obama sends Clinton to cut a deal with them.  Now sending Clinton at the very least lends some legitimacy to what the North Korean despots did, but it may be that some deal was brokered in order to secure the release of the two women, which would be even worse.  The best way to deal with a situation like that is provide a deadline for the release of those citizens followed by a reprisal should they refuse to comply.  I think one well placed nuke should fairly well obliterate North Korea.  Anyways, my point is that all these despots are getting ballsy because they know Obama is a bed wetting puppet.  I would also like to point out that the North Korean government is also responsible for the sinking of the oil rig in the gulf of Mexico.  Methane bubble my foot.  Check this out: 

A grim report circulating in the Kremlin today written by Russia’s Northern Fleet is reporting that the United States has ordered a complete media blackout over North Korea’s torpedoing of the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform owned by the World’s largest offshore drilling contractor Transocean that was built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., that has caused great loss of life, untold billions in economic damage to the South Korean economy, and an environmental catastrophe to the United States.

—and—

To the attack itself, these reports continue, the North Korean “cargo vessel” Dai Hong Dan believed to be staffed by 17th Sniper Corps “suicide” troops left Cuba’s Empresa Terminales Mambisas de La Habana (Port of Havana) on April 18^th whereupon it “severely deviated” from its intended course for Venezuela’s Puerto Cabello bringing it to within 209 kilometers (130 miles) of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform which was located 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of the US State of Louisiana where it launched an SSC Sang-o Class Mini Submarine (Yugo class) estimated to have an operational range of 321 kilometers (200 miles).

On the night of April 20^th the North Korean Mini Submarine manned by these “suicidal” 17th Sniper Corps soldiers attacked the Deepwater Horizon with what are believed to be 2 incendiary torpedoes causing a massive explosion and resulting in 11 workers on this giant oil rig being killed outright.  Barely 48 hours later, on April 22^nd , this North Korean Mini Submarine committed its final atrocity by exploding itself directly beneath the Deepwater Horizon causing this $1 Billion oil rig to sink beneath the seas and marking 2010’s celebration of Earth Day with one of the largest environmental catastrophes our World has ever seen.

Source: http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/us-orders-blackout-over-north-korean-torpedoing-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig/

So basically, the NKD (North Korean Despots) decide to blow up one of our oil rigs because they want to put Obama in a bad spot, and they know that he’s not going to retaliate because he’s a Sissycrat.  So instead of retaliating or allowing himself to be put in a bad spot within US politics Barack Osama decides to have a media blackout, and I’m sure this factors into their impetus to regulate the internet.  What is the point in having the government if they are not going to deal with this threat?  The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the citizens, and that includes from external threats who seek to destroy our way of life.  If they aren’t going to do that then what do we need them for?  May as well have no government and let private contractors deal with the threat of North Korea.

I think I might start reading Eutimes.net more.  

New Elections:

Now, in other news, as I and many other conservatives predicted, the new elections are not going well for the Democraps.  But let’s recap:  The reason the Democrats won the last election was because the media continually slandered Bush and the Republicans in general.  The media campaigned for Obama during the election, and people listened to the media so Obama was elected as were many more Demoncrats (coat-tail effect).  However, since the majority of people who vote for Dhimmicrats don’t usually know what exactly it is that they are voting for, especially the swing voters, Barack Osama was able to surprise the tools when he starting initiating policies which the majority of the citizens found repellent.  Of course people were surprised because there has never been an administration so liberal, nor one so unimpeded as Congress was mostly peopled with Democrats.  It was unprecedented, but now they are being voted out:

By MICHAEL SCHERER / WASHINGTON Michael Scherer / Washington – Wed May 19, 7:15 pm ET

In quick succession on Tuesday night, the jittery inhabitants of Washington’s marble halls found three more reasons to worry about their staying power. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the Senate’s patron saint of resilience, was turned out in a Democratic primary in favor of an unwanted rival, Representative Joe Sestak, who had neither major union support nor White House support. In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln, a model of Southern Democratic moderation, was forced into a primary runoff by a self-styled outsider, Bill Halter, challenging from her left. And in Kentucky, the Washington establishment’s chosen Republican Senate candidate, Trey Grayson, fell to the son of a libertarian outlier who carried the flag of another party. “I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We’ve come to take our government back,” declared Rand Paul, son of Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, upon winning by a double-digit margin. (See 10 races that have Democrats worried for 2010.)

—and—

This anti-incumbent mood pervades both parties, leaving open the possibility that the same wave that brought Obama into office in 2008 will undo his governing majorities in 2010. The one bright spot for Obama was a special election on Tuesday night in Pennsylvania‘s 12th district, where Democrats held on to a seat in a conservative district previously held by John Murtha, the big-spending defense appropriator who died earlier this year. The seat was won by Mark Critz, a pro-life, pro-gun former Murtha staffer who opposes health care reform and overcame significant Republican spending. The victory demonstrated that Democrats still have hope for making congressional races local, not national, affairs in the fall. (See “Primary Tuesday: Sending the Bums the Right Message.”)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100519/us_time/08599199018500

Of course the article tries to make it look as though people are upset with both parties or government in general, but the majority of people are upset with the Demoncrats.  Because of course any news about the Democrats has to portray them in a positive light, and anything negative that happens to them has to have the edge taken off.  After all, the Democrats are the party of the New York Times, and most other journalistic organizations.  Seriously, they act as though they’re on the Democrats payroll even though they are not.  It’s not an “anti-incumbent” mood it’s an anti-liberal/conservative mood.  People are fed up with the liberal politicians messing everything up.  The important trend they are not recognizing is that people want a more conservative government, and the new candidates that are winning are those who are more conservative.  Anyways, to Arlen Spectre I would like to say, so long, don’t forget to let the door hit you on the way out.