This is going to be an angry rant, so get ready for it:

Later on I might write something more critical and actually dissect this abomination, but for now I just want to rant.

So they passed their health crap bill, and now my tax money gets used to pay the medical expenses of imbeciles who destroy their body by smoking (like the joke in Chief Barack Osama) and all the myriad fat pathetic slobs who have heart conditions and cholesterol related illnesses because they can’t just drive on by when they pass a Burger King or Wendy’s.  The 60% + of the population who doesn’t know how to eat right is now my responsibility.

I just can’t stand these Democrats and their sniveling sycophant supporters in the media, imposing their backwards Soviet bullcrap on the population.  All these Democraps need to piss off to Siberia where they belong and spend the rest of their pathetic lives pushing a giant red tractor up a glacier as their fingers snap off from frost bite.  And anyone who voted for them should join them there, because that’s where they all belong. 

I’m planning on writing about sissification from the left and the effects it’s having on western culture and the world.  But here’s a good basic intro:

 

Normally I consider it crude to discuss deep personal feelings in such a public forum, but just this once I will admit that lately at times when I watch a movie from my rather substantial sci-fi collection I sometimes feel a twinge of agony.  Why?  Because I know that although we can achieve the grandeur depicted in some of those movies, we won’t because of characters like Obama and the people who voted for him.  But first, I would like to share a dream that I had a few nights ago.  I do not necessarily believe that my dreams are prescient, but it’s a fact that my mind continues to work and mull over things in my sleep, and that my unconscious mind has access to memories that my conscious mind cannot always access.  Basically my dream was as follows:

I found myself on another planet, or planetary body in any case, I believe it was one of the moons of Jupiter.  The moon had been terraformed and colonized.  However, since it was considerably further from the sun it was significantly colder, and a bit darker.  A level of illumination one might find at sunrise, sunset, or a very cloudy day.  It was also fairly cloudy and moist.  The plants there were genetically engineered, and appeared different from standard terrestrial varieties.  Off in the distance there was an enormous industrial building.  It was my impression that the enormous industrial building and the flora were instrumental in the terraforming process, which depended on generating a synthetic greenhouse effect.  At any rate, it was not the US that carried out the colonization and terraforming since Obama has pretty much grounded our space program (he cancelled the mission to colonize the moon).  The work, terraforming and colonization, was actually done by Tunisia of all places.  Anyways, I remembered the relief I felt at being there because I was safe from the one world (Earth) government, and any children I had would also be safe.  Why?  Because it is written that the anti-Christ will rule the earth, but not anything more than the earth. 

Shortly after having this dream, I did some research about the moons of Jupiter to see if my dream could ever come true.  I already knew that Europa was covered in water ice (I say water ice because there are other bodies in the solar system covered with frozen gasses, which is ice but not water), so Europa was the first one I looked into.  It is believed that Europa has liquid water deep beneath the surface ice, and that the icy crust sometimes cracks and reshapes itself, probably due to the influence of tidal forces from Jupiter.  Also, there is some evidence of liquid water erupting to the surface.  I also found out that Europa has an atmosphere of oxygen, although only a minute fraction of the density of Earth’s atmosphere.  However, I ruled Europa out as a feasible candidate for terraforming as it seems that even if the temperature could be raised there would still be no place to live as the entire surface would be covered with ocean.  That, and I don’t believe that the gravity has sufficient strength to retain a full atmosphere.  However, I also discovered that Ganymede also has an oxygen atmosphere.

Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system, but still somewhat smaller than Mars.  Ganymede appears to have both oceans and some type of land mass.  Scientists have described the two types of terrain as “old” and “new” given the fact that one is more cratered than the other.  The “old” terrain is dark and abundantly cratered.  The “new” terrain is light, has few craters, and exhibits the same sort of ridge formations found on Europa.  The light terrain is definitely water ice and seems to reshape itself and in doing so erase evidence of craters.  It would appear that the surface of Ganymede has both land and oceans.  Ganymede also has a magnetosphere, and it is the only moon that does.  Aside from navigational uses, a magnetosphere also deflects harmful particles from the sun.  Like Earth, Ganymede also has aurora borealis events at the poles.  Out of all bodies in the solar system, Ganymede bears the strongest resemblance to Earth.  If it were closer to the sun it would probably be inhabitable.  That being said, it might still be possible to render it habitable if an artificial greenhouse effect could be generated.  It would be colder than Earth but parts of it might not be fatally so. 

I have always believed that it was part of God’s original plan for humanity to spread out and colonize the universe.  We may not be the only sentient form of life God has made, but it’s a fact that we were originally intended to be immortal, and given an immortal yet reproducing population expansion would become a necessity.  Some of the planets and moons in the solar system have the necessary components to support life, while some are rich in raw materials for construction and fuel.  And of course colonizing other planets in the solar system would only be the first step toward branching outward through all of space.  So I definitely believe that it can be done, it’s only a matter of discovery and unlocking the secrets.

So why did Obama cancel the lunar program and how does this hurt progress?  I explained earlier how the moon would be a valuable jumping off point for further colonization of the solar system.  I would not mind if Obama cancelled the space program, as it is a government program and anything the government can do the private sector can do better, were it not for the fact that he is also working to abolish the private sector.  Also I cannot believe that the government would allow private industries to place colonies on the moon unless there was a government presence there in advance of them.  Initially I thought that he cancelled the lunar program simply because he was anti-progress.  From after Kennedy onwards the Democrats have been rather hostile towards science and progress, opposing valuable defense programs and space exploration.  There is a significant element among the Democratic constituency which contributes nothing to society and expects to be supported by the government and others.  There is an element that cares nothing for science and progress, cares for no one but themselves, feels that others owe them simply because they exist, and hates the rest of society.  There is another element of the Democrat party that hates traditional American values (self sufficiency and progress), and feels that we as a nation should be punished.  That fairly well sums up the majority of the Democratic constituency.  So, although he could have cancelled any program, it makes thorough sense that he would strike at the space program.  However, I think there is another reason why besides the obvious.

¹²And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

 ¹³And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

 ¹⁴And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

–Revelation 13:12-14

Not saying that Obama is the anti-Christ, and just for the record I do not believe he is, but I definitely believe he is preparing the way.  In any case, the upper echelons of the political left probably know what they are doing, and the effect is that they are cutting off an escape route.  It is written that Satan will rule the earth one day through the anti-Christ, but it is not written that they will ever control anything more than that.  It is logical to conclude that if people could leave the earth for other worlds, then an escape route would exist, so it is important for them to make sure that no such route exists.

Time to critique the contents of another article.  As usual, I will provide a link to the article while also posting the article here in it’s entirety.  My critique will be interspersed in a different color.  I do this so that in the event that the original article is taken down people will still be able to see it in it’s entirety here.

I wanted to review some of Obama’s brilliant spending policies.  Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Breaking-Down-Obamas-usnews-2887540658.html?x=0

Breaking Down Obama’s Budget

Perhaps the most obvious of financial truisms is that there’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all national budget. And with the economic forecast looking more incoherent than ever, it’s also the most problematic of truisms for President Barack Obama and his $3.8 trillion spending plan for 2011.

I know it, he wants to escalate Federal spending at a time when sources of revenue are way down.  The Democrats answer to everything is to throw money at it, even if they have to borrow to do it.  They think they can borrow their way out of debt.

[See Obama Retirement Proposals Tell a Sad Story.]

On the one hand, the economy is stumbling back from a savage recession, helped along, the Obama administration vigorously claims, by ambitious government stimulus plans. But at the same time, record deficits have forced the administration to temper its spending and to toe a contentious line.

I’m glad that the author stated it this way, “the Obama administration vigorously claims,” I could not have said it better myself.  Of course anyone who knows anything about economics will understand two basic facts: 1) the economy goes through cycles of growth and recession.  2) Government does not generate wealth, it draws wealth from the economy which is where production occurs.

Given those facts, if anything all that Obama is doing is slowing down the recovery.  After all, he has to draw money from the economy in order to fund his spending programs, which in turn do not generate wealth but rather redistribute it, thus hampering the economic principle of money flowing to places where it is most efficiently utilized.  If he let the money stay in the economy it would probably recover faster.

As was expected, the budget that emerged from these dynamics has unleashed a mixed bag of emotions and compromises. Wealthy Americans and big business bemoaned yesterday an estimated $1.9 trillion in tax increases, even as small businesses and low- and middle-income families gladly accepted a host of proposed financial incentives. Meanwhile, NASA buried its hopes of getting back to the moon and in return was given an amplified budget. Here’s a more complete look at the winners and losers in the president’s budget:

In order for the economy to prosper, and for new jobs to be created, the money has to be allowed to flow where it is most efficiently utilized, and demand has to dictate the goods and services that are produced.  Otherwise what you have is a command economy, where innovation is stifled because people work out of fear rather than a incentive or a desire to fulfill their ambitions.  When the government takes over everything, force becomes the only compunction in performance because wages are fixed, and even if they were not the only things that money can be spent on are government products, so the wages become meaningless.  The Democrats are only concerned about fueling the machine of government, they don’t care at all for the future of the country or the opportunities that are available for people in the private sector.  As to the socialist redistribution of wealth, it certainly will not help.  Taking money away from businesses that employ people will not help create any new jobs.  Giving it to “small businesses” will not help either, if a product is useful then it will sell itself without government subsidy.  If the product is worthless or pointless then why should tax money be used to subsidize it?  How is that not a dead end?  As for giving money to the poor, that is just pure communism.  How about laying off of the taxes so that employers can hire more people?  The only reason why Democrats throw money at poor people is to bribe them to vote for them.  What they really want to do is create a permanent underclass that will continually furnish them with votes.  Well I’m poor, and I have gotten hundreds of dollars thrown at me by the Democrats, and I will still never vote for them.

Losers

The moon. Obama’s budget would put an end to Constellation, a NASA program whose goal it is to get Americans back to the moon by 2020. Critics have called the proposed elimination of the program a major blow to NASA and to space exploration in general.

Which was a brilliant idea.  If memory serves, the plan was to eventually establish a permanent colony on the moon which would be used as a jumping off point for colonization of the rest of the solar system.  I have always been an advocate of Space Exploration.  In fact Space Exploration, Military, and Interstate roads are government programs that I actually approve of, the only ones that I approve of.  Why?  Because the benefits of those things are apparent and useful to everyone.  But since I realize that some of my readers are liberals, I will go ahead and explain the utility of each.  Interstate highways make it so that you can drive from Montana to Texas.  The Military can protect you from invasion, yes they do have an actual function.  Space Exploration leads to technical innovation in a variety of fields, from transportation, to computer tech, to food preparation.  Yes, the microwave came about in order to provide astronauts with a means of cooking their food in zero-G.  In addition, space exploration can provide relief for overpopulation and cleaner methods of production.  Those three things benefit all sectors of society, while the Democrats “social programs” only benefit one sector, and it’s a sector of non-producers.

“The president’s proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human space flight. The cancelation of the Constellation program and the end of human space flight does represent change–but it is certainly not the change I believe in,” Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, said in a statement.

I too am immensely disappointed that Obama has done this but not at all surprised.  I anticipated that it was only a matter of time before he did.  This is a typical result of the short sighted self centered myopia which afflicts most people on the political left.  Their entire concern is getting into power and staying there, they care nothing about the future, the well being of the people, or the progress of science. 

Obama’s new model for NASA involves an increased focus on the development of engines, fuel technology, commercial applications, and robotics. In fact, despite its plans to scrap Constellation, the Obama administration has actually proposed increasing NASA’s overall budget. Over five years, NASA would get $100 billion.

Why scrap the program if he is going to increase the budget?  This man makes no sense.  I don’t buy for one second that he is interested in commercial applications when everything he does is geared towards nationalizing the private sector.  He probably just wants them to find ways to make airplanes run on vegetable oil for fuel, which would be a great idea, but colonization and expansion ought to take precedence.  Historically, empires are the most productive and successful during states of expansion and colonization.  Why?  Because the colonization effort generates new jobs and funds itself in the process.  Harvesting the natural resources of a new area eventually recuperates the expenses in man power and equipment. 

Howard McCurdy, a public affairs professor at American University and an expert on space policy, says that scrapping Constellation would not harm overall exploration prospects so much as it would draw attention away from the moon and toward more distant parts of the galaxy. “If the new model works, we might not want to go back to the moon,” he says.

Brown noser.  I fail to see the relevance in quoting this man.  Looking at new places through a telescope is not nearly as valuable or conducive to scientific progress as actually GOING there.  Right now, interstellar travel is not feasible, but it will never become so if all people do is look through telescopes.  In order to come up with new innovations for travel one must actually travel.  Inter-solar travel is a necessary precursor to interstellar travel.  Setting up a colony on the moon would be a brilliant beginning, as it would lead to new innovations and provide an excellent staging point for further exploration and colonization.  It would lead to traffic between the earth and moon for starters, which would lead to innovations in fuel efficiency and speed, which would lead to colonizing other planets and moons, which would lead to more innovations, which would eventually lead to moving beyond the solar system.  I think that the real reason why Obama is against this is because he’s against progress.  So the future isn’t Star Trek, it’s the Soviet Union.  In Soviet Russia, escalator is ice on stairs and rails.

The rich. Under Obama’s proposal, Bush-era tax cuts would be allowed to expire for individuals making more than $200,000 per year and for married couples who earn more than $250,000. Obama has also proposed increasing from 15 percent to 20 percent the capital gains tax rate for Americans in those wealth brackets.

“The tax hikes are basically on the rich,” says Gerald Prante, an economist with the Tax Foundation. “They’re the biggest losers.”

No, the biggest losers are all the people who can’t get jobs because employers cannot afford to hire as many people anymore.  Reduction in revenue means a reduction in the size of the staff that employers can have.  Someone needs to school these Dhimmicrats. 

Meanwhile, Obama is also trying to reduce the tax breaks that families with over $250,000 get when they make charitable contributions. “Currently, if a middle-class family donates a dollar to its favorite charity or spends a dollar on mortgage interest, it gets a 15-cent tax deduction, but a millionaire who does the same enjoys a deduction that is more than twice as generous,” the budget reads. “By reducing this disparity and returning the high-income deduction to the same rates that were in place at the end of the Reagan Administration, we will raise $291 billion over the next decade.”

That’s great, let’s also discourage voluntary giving.  Because everyone knows that bureaucrats are so much more caring than people involved in charity and missions work.  The deduction for the millionaire is not more than twice as generous, those things are based on percentages and he probably actually gets back a much smaller percent of the money he donates.  Also, the millionaire is already paying more taxes.  People who have been duped into voting for Democrats may actually think that the Democrats are being generous, but they’re actually being thieves.  It’s only generosity if you’re giving of yourself, and the Democrats are giving away other peoples money.

In a related move, the budget would end the preferential tax treatment that hedge fund and private equity managers receive, forcing them to pay normal income taxes on their profits. Previously, they had been allowed to pay capital gains rates. This would bring in $24 billion in additional tax revenue over 10 years.

Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, says that this plan predates the backlash that hedge funds have experienced in the wake of the Bernard Madoff saga.

I have a better idea, why not eliminate the income tax (which is unconstitutional to begin with), and institute the Fair Tax where people are taxed based on how much money they spend?  If you must have taxes at all.  Of course there is going to be a backlash when you start forcing people to pay more money.  How could anyone be happy about that?

“I think it was a concern just because those folks were making lots and lots of money and being taxed at a very, very low rate relative to other high-income individuals,” he says. “So it was raised mostly as an issue of high-income people facing low tax rates, not as an issue of [backlash] against the financial excesses that we saw.”

Blather… blather…

Banks, oil companies. Obama’s much-anticipated bank tax also made it into the budget. The tax, which would be imposed on the nation’s largest financial institutions, would produce $90 billion over the course of a decade.

Obama giveth and Obama taketh away.  So first he throws money at them, and now he’s going to take it back.  Clearly this man has no idea what he’s doing, which isn’t surprising considering that he has the most incompetent staff of any president in US history. 

The budget also targets oil and natural-gas companies, which would lose $36.5 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. “We cannot continue to ignore the clean energy challenge and stand still while other countries move forward in the emerging industries of the 21st century,” Obama said in the introduction to the budget.

So now we get to pay even more for gas then we have so far.  Doesn’t look like this policy is conducive to moving anywhere, literally, much less forward.  New methods of propulsion aren’t going to appear just because it costs people more money to go to work every day. 

Prante says that the oil and bank taxes are both part of a larger populist agenda. “Like banks, they’re not very popular,” he says of oil companies.

Wrong, no one wants to pay even more for gas.  Some of us actually have to work for a living.

Winners

Space commercialization. The budget gives NASA $6 billion over five years to use toward helping private companies build commercial ships capable of carrying humans into space. “NASA’s not very good at manufacturing and running things in a conventional sense,” says McCurdy. “They’re not a very good airline company. So the concept is that as these technologies become mature and talent becomes dispersed, activities are spun off into the commercial sector.”

This funding could touch off a tidal wave of proposals from private companies that are eager to tap into the space industry. It also represents the shifting dynamics that NASA has been facing ever since the moon landing.

“When we flew to the moon, the astronauts all wore [matching] suits and…worked for NASA,” says McCurdy. But since then, corporations have been gradually intruding.

What corporation actually has a space program, and how is it a corporate endeavor if it become nationalized?  Because that is what we’re talking about when a government agency becomes involved.  This is all just a smoke screen to cover the fact that Obama wants to stunt space exploration and expansion. 

Small businesses. The spending plan would increase the Small Business Administration’s 2011 budget by upwards of 20 percent. At the same time, it would also push up from $2 million to $5 million the maximum size of the SBA’s signature 7(a) loans, which are given to startups and existing businesses.

This is addressed in the fourth paragraph of my commentary.

Meanwhile, community banks would get access to $30 billion to lend out to small businesses. The money would come from the funds that Wall Street firms have paid back to the government in the aftermath of the $700 billion bank bailout.

Who will guarantee those loans?  They are counting on an economic recovery but if there isn’t one then the debt will still be there, and if there is one then it doesn’t necessarily follow that the losses will be recuperated.

[See Obama Courts Small-Business Owners.]

Elsewhere in the budget, small businesses get a number of tax benefits, including breaks for companies that hire new workers. These measures, along with the others, keep up the tone that Obama set in the State of the Union, when he made small businesses a priority.

Right, tell that to Joe.  If a business has something to offer of value then it can stand and grow without Federal subsidies.  If it doesn’t have something to offer then it should be allowed to fail.  Why not just lower taxes on the businesses that are already doing well so that they can hire more workers?  Because with the Democrats it’s all about control, and they know that if they provide businesses with subsidies then they can also attach conditions which give them more CONTROL.  They don’t care if successful businesses that provide valuable services might suffer or fail, they just want to be in control of as much of everything as they can.  Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven right?  That’s the mentality they have. 

“It appears that there’s certainly a good amount of emphasis being placed on small businesses in this budget,” says Molly Brogan, a spokesperson for the National Small Business Association. “I think overall it came out pretty well.”

Low- and middle-income Americans. The budget calls for a one-year extension of the Making Work Pay tax credit. This credit offsets Social Security payroll taxes and is worth $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. Around 95 percent of the country’s workers are eligible.

I still have yet to see Obama give his definition of “Middle Class” and “Lower Income.”  Basically what this amounts to is a socialist redistribution of wealth.

At the same time, Obama is also looking to permanently extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which affects parents and students who are paying for college tuition. The credit gives $2,500 per year to single filers who make less than $80,000 and to married couples who earn less than $160,000. The budget would also increase tax breaks for families who have child-care expenses.

Or he could just cut taxes to everyone, but that will never happen with the Democrats in charge.  Of course he does all this because he wants people to have the impression that he is cutting taxes, when he is really just burying the cost of it elsewhere.  He will first eliminate some of the previous tax cuts so that overall it will amount to no loss of revenue for the IRS.

Overall, though, the proposed credits do little to expand the safety net that low- and middle-income families already have. Instead, for the most part Obama is proposing an extension of his previous policies. “The proposals are not very different from what they were last year,” says Williams.

I really hope that during the next election Obama and friends will be flushed out and the next group will reverse all of his policies.  Not that I worship or put my faith in government or a particular party, but these policies are backwards and parasitic. 

And now, just in case anyone didn’t understand I’ll try to make it nice and simple with some visual aid.  As a result of Obama’s policies, this is not the future…

This is the future…

I wish to comment on the article so I am going to post it in full with my commentary interspersed in a different colored font:

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100126/lf_afp/francepoliticsreligionislamwomenrights

French report calls for burqa ban

Banning the burka and the hijab is nothing more than treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.  The fact of the matter is that the Moslems are there now, and their rate of reproduction far exceeds the feeble European reproductive rate.  All the Moslems have to do is wait about 30 years or less, and then they will be the majority in the country and they will be able to do whatever they want.  The European natives will become a minority of Dhimmis in their own countries, and the Moslems will be able to build as many mosques as they want, stone as many women as they want, and institute the Jizya tax if they feel so inclined.  The key to this problem is to ban all Islamic immigration.  Immigration from the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia is fine as long as the people who are coming are not Moslems.  Christian and other religious minorities need a place to go as refugees, and Europe can be that place of freedom for them, but not if it become Europistan.

I have been told by quite a few individuals that I should see the Avatar movie by James Cameron.  Here is the evolution of my thought process on Avatar:

You mean it’s got nothing to do with the animated TV series by that name?  Not interested.

Oh, it looks like a special effects movie which may become a major pop-culture success just because of the special effects, not interested.  It probably has no storyline.

Oh, so the storyline is basically a rehashing of the white people vs. Native Americans?  OK that’s old and is going to fuel stereotypes.  Not interested.

I always wondered when the general populace would realize that such themes actually engender racism towards white people.  But of course I never expected anyone to harp about the somewhat racist theme of that movie because racism against white people is not considered to be racist.  I never expected anyone to say this:

Since the film opened to widespread critical acclaim three weeks ago, hundreds of blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have said things such as the film is “a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people” and that it reinforces “the white Messiah fable.”

At first I was speechless, and then a bit shocked at how people on the left can be so delusional and steeped in racism that they could believe a movie flick which actually contains anti-white propaganda could be a white-pride propaganda piece.  What disturbs me more than anything about this, is that these people are actually able to vote. 

First of all, I am not normally someone with a high degree of race consciousness.  My staunch individualism tends to mitigate that.  I normally divide people up based on right and wrong, or right and left.  I’m fairly comfortable being around anyone as long as their ideas for social organization and economics are similar to mine (conservative, capitalist, respecting natural rights, etc.).  Also, I tend to feel alienated from the majority of white people because they don’t share my sexual morals and lifestyle views (drinking, partying, smoking, drugs, and divorce are all things I shun and hate).  But whenever I hear the old leftist mantra of “white people are responsible for all the evil in the world, especially the white male” and the “only white people can be racist” etc. then I have to say something, because it’s ridiculous that people can spout this kind of stupidity and not be recognized as racist lunatics by the gross majority of people in western societies.  Part of the problem is that these views are prevalent in college level academia.  So before I dissect this article to pieces, I am going to address some of the prevalent racist views directed towards white people:

First of all, white people are not the only people who can be racist.  When I was going to GSU (extremely liberal place full of Antisemitism and hatred) I had to take a race relations class, where the main points the teacher wanted to get across were that only white people can be racist and that race is a social construction. Anyone with an IQ of 100 SHOULD be able to realize that those two statements are in conflict with one another.  If there are no such thing as racial groups then you can’t have a racial group which is endemically racist.  I tried to explain to him that racism was an attitude which involves thinking that people other races are inferior in some way and having malice towards them.  Anyone can have those kinds of attitudes towards another group.  Did he get it?  No, of course not. 

The anti-white propaganda in academia is wrong for three reasons: 1) it’s dishonest, 2) it is divisive encourages racism, 3) it encourages people to blame others instead of taking responsibility for themselves. 

Yes it is true there was an age of European colonialism.  Does this make Europeans inherently more evil than all other people groups for all time?  No, and especially not for all time.  Europeans became colonial powers because they experienced a period of rapid technological advancement.  The reason for this was two-fold, one being the fall of the Catholic church opened the door for scientific inquiry and freedom of thought, and the other reason was that coal was found in abundance in different parts of Europe which eventually allowed for the industrial revolution.  During the Middle Ages China actually started to have an industrial revolution, but the Mongols came down and ransacked them which fairly well halted their progress.  The Mongols also dealt a grievous blow to Russian civilization, and modern Russia still suffers from some of those effects.  More on the Mongols shortly.  The reason why the Europeans colonized others was because they were more advanced technologically, and anyone else would have done the same thing had they had their industrial revolution first.  Look what Japan did as soon as they modernized.  It is true that European colonists were often cruel and oppressive, but so were all of the less technologically advanced people in the world, and the Europeans at least were not cannibals, unlike some other cultures.  The Native Americans were brutal and cruel towards one another before the English and Spanish came, it’s just that they lost because they were less advanced technologically.  Furthermore as much as people like to hate on western civilization, they actually owe western civ. for inventing computers and TV making it possible for them to spew their hatred on the internet and mass media.

Even given the depredations of western colonialism, it’s absolutely absurd to hold modern white people responsible for that.  And just to be clear, not all white people are a part of western civ. or European descent either.  At any rate, no one can help what race they are born into.  You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can’t pick your family.  As for me personally, I never asked to be a white.  It’s not as though I was a bodiless spirit in Heaven saying “please God let me be a white male so I can go down there and oppress people because I’m an evil spirit and I want to be oppressive.”  Ridiculous, and I’m not out to “get” people of other races, nor do I bear anyone malice because of their race.  They cannot help what they were born as any more than I can.  But I WILL hold people responsible for what they do and say.  Furthermore, even if my ancestors were brutal psychotic lunatics that traded slaves and raped Amerindian women on the weekends then I don’t owe anyone jack for that because I wasn’t around back then and I had jack all to do with it.  Incidentally, my ancestors were peasants and serfs and they didn’t have anything to do with it either.  Also, Europeans have been the victims of gratuitous depredations in the past.  The Huns did a number on western civilization, and so did the Mongols and Turks.  So maybe I should receive a weekly paycheck from Asian taxpayers because they’re Asian and I’m white?  Of course anyone who is reasonable will immediately recognize that that statement is ludicrous, but that is the sort of logic that these people use who think they are entitled to something because of their race.  It’s stupid to hold people responsible for something that their ancestors may have done.  Anyways, moving on.

I will post the article in full and intersperse my commentary.
Source: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/some-see-racist-theme-alien-adventure-avatar-ap

- Near the end of the hit film “Avatar,” the villain snarls at the hero, “How does it feel to betray your own race?” Both men are white — although the hero is inhabiting a blue-skinned, 9-foot-tall, long-tailed alien.

The antagonists are white in this movie.

Strange as it may seem for a film that pits greedy, immoral humans against noble denizens of a faraway moon, “Avatar” is being criticized by a small but vocal group of people who allege it contains racist themes — the white hero once again saving the primitive natives.

Of course the antagonists are all white, and the protagonists are all… alien, but the cultural similarities and the nature of the conflict are somewhat analogous to “white people vs. Native Americans.”  But again, if there is any racist theme self evident then it is that the white people as villains is being rehatched.  If all of the other humans were white but the hero is black I would bet any amount of money that NONE of these people would be so vocal.  But imagine if the majority of the villains had been black, then there would be an even greater uproar over alleged racism but different evidence would be cited as support.  To individuals steeped in liberalism it is thoroughly acceptable to have all the villains be white and the heroes something else without being racist, but if it’s a white person helping out some other group then it’s racist all of a sudden. 

Since the film opened to widespread critical acclaim three weeks ago, hundreds of blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have said things such as the film is “a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people” and that it reinforces “the white Messiah fable.”

That is not a white racial fantasy.  Clearly white people are depicted as the antagonists, having one be the hero might have been an attempt at fairness, even though it’s still hugely unbalanced given what the majority of the antagonists are, and even though in the end the hero was no longer even white, or human for that matter.  I think it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this is a sci-fi flick, and as stupid as I think the story might be, there are absolutely no grounds for accusing James Cameron of being denigrating towards any non-white race.  This is just more of the “white people are out to get us because they’re white” thought process and propaganda. 

The film’s writer and director, James Cameron, says the real theme is about respecting others’ differences.

A story which he could have told without making all the villains white.

In the film (read no further if you don’t want the plot spoiled for you) a white, paralyzed Marine, Jake Sully, is mentally linked to an alien’s body and set loose on the planet Pandora. His mission: persuade the mystic, nature-loving Na’vi to make way for humans to mine their land for unobtanium, worth $20 million per kilo back home.

Like Kevin Costner in “Dances with Wolves” and Tom Cruise in “The Last Samurai” or as far back as Jimmy Stewart in the 1950 Western “Broken Arrow,” Sully soon switches sides. He falls in love with the Na’vi princess and leads the bird-riding, bow-and-arrow-shooting aliens to victory over the white men’s spaceships and mega-robots.

Adding to the racial dynamic is that the main Na’vi characters are played by actors of color, led by a Dominican, Zoe Saldana, as the princess. The film also is an obvious metaphor for how European settlers in America wiped out the Indians.

EXACTLY, and none of these whiners have a problem with that aspect of the film, while I do.  It’s a theme which is overused and does nothing but encourage hatred of white people.  Movies are designed to get people involved emotionally, so if all the antagonists belong to a specific group and the antagonists are designed to be disliked, then what sort of sentiments will the average person have toward that group?  If A = B and B = C then A = C.

The race of the majority of the actors who portray the protagonists adds nothing to this alleged “dynamic” because they are covered in makeup and prosthetics which completely obscures their actual physiognomy.

 

The only possible way to know the race of the people underneath the makeup is to look at the credits.  And assuming that the casting is intended to convey any kind of message, the obvious one is “white people bad–non-white people good.”

Robinne Lee, an actress in such recent films as “Seven Pounds” and “Hotel for Dogs,” said that “Avatar” was “beautiful” and that she understood the economic logic of casting a white lead if most of the audience is white.

I don’t see the relevance in consulting with that person.  She wasn’t even in the movie and obviously Zoe Saldana, who btw did an awesome job as Uhura, did not feel that way, nor did the other actors who participated in that movie.

But she said the film, which so far has the second-highest worldwide box-office gross ever, still reminded her of Hollywood’s “Pocahontas” story — “the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the savior.”

I dislike the use of the term “Indian” in reference to Native Americans because they are not at all the same.  The term is misleading and inaccurate.  Whenever I, and any educated scholar, historian, or anthropologist says “Indian” it is in reference to persons from India, not Native Americans.

“It’s really upsetting in many ways,” said Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. “It would be nice if we could save ourselves.”

She’s either a colossal ignoramus or she is deliberately being misleading.  She must be unaware of the Will Smith movies where Will Smith saves the world, movies like Independence Day (which I hated), Men in Black (which I thought was great), and I-Robot, plust the others which I haven’t seen.  When I watch a Will Smith movie, it never crosses my mind to complain about how a black guy is saving white people because I don’t have a collectivistic and/or victim mentality where I percieve that an entire race is out to get my collective.  I just see a great actor doing a good job and providing me with valuable entertainment, and Will Smith is a good actor.  Furthermore, it’s pretty sad how this person is part Chinese, and seems to be so ignorant of Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Lee. 

Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of the sci-fi Web site io9.com , likened “Avatar” to the recent film “District 9,” in which a white man accidentally becomes an alien and then helps save them, and 1984′s “Dune,” in which a white man becomes an alien Messiah.

I see no value in quoting this person either, who is also either woefully ignorant or trying to spread disinformation.  Dune was a book written by Frank Herbert, which he later followed up with more books creating a series.  His son Brian Herbert continues to expound upon the Dune series.  Anyone who has actually read Dune will realize that there are no aliens in the series other than different animal life forms.  It is true that the Fremen are descended from Moslems but Islam is a religion not a race.  The cultures and races in Dune are structured a bit differently than modern humanity, but the character Newitz is talking about (Paul Muad Dib) is not necessarily white, or at least not in the Indo-European sense.  Paul’s father, Leto Atredies, is described as having aqueline features and olive skin.  That description is more applicable to Mesoamerican and Indian than it is to any person of pure Indo-European descent.  As far as the movie Newitz is talking about, I actually own that movie, and all of Fremen are played by white actors and look no different than Paul Muad Dib.  Newitz is a liar. 

“Main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color … (then) go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed,” she wrote.

Not all white people are out to get people of other races, nor are their principle motives always racist.  This type of generalization is going to stymie creativity. 

“When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?” wrote Newitz, who is white.

This statement is so absurd that I almost have nothing to say.  Newitz is clearly a racist person, and I would say that she knows nothing about the history of sci-fi either.  If she wants to see how depiction of race has changed she needs to look at some of the older productions, like the original Flash Gordon series.  Things have definitely changed, but just because someone does not automatically follow her absurd and non-rational line of reasoning does not make them racist.  For a sci-fi commentator she is woefully ignorant about the history and development of the genre.

Black film professor and author Donald Bogle said he can understand why people would be troubled by “Avatar,” although he praised it as a “stunning” work.

I’m troubled by it but for different reasons, I am going to reserve judgment on this man’s opinion simply because he has not stated what aspects of the movie he finds troubling.

“A segment of the audience is carrying in the back of its head some sense of movie history,” said Bogle, author of “Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films.”

Bogle stopped short, however, of calling the movie racist.

“It’s a film with still a certain kind of distortion,” he said. “It’s a movie that hasn’t yet freed itself of old Hollywood traditions, old formulas.”

Which traditions and formulas might those be?

Writer/director Cameron, who is white, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that his film “asks us to open our eyes and truly see others, respecting them even though they are different, in the hope that we may find a way to prevent conflict and live more harmoniously on this world. I hardly think that is a racist message.”

Clearly not everyone wants to live harmoniously with others.  There are plenty of people who think that others should be punished because of who they might be descended from, and/or think that they are entitled to free handouts just because of their race. 

There are many ways to interpret the art that is “Avatar.”

What does it mean that in the final, sequel-begging scene, Sully abandons his human body and transforms into one of the Na’vi for good? Is Saldana’s Na’vi character the real heroine because she, not Sully, kills the arch-villain? Does it matter that many conservatives are riled by what they call liberal environmental and anti-military messages?

Well since the media and entertainment industry have almost exclusively shown contempt for conservatives, I would say that to the industries it does not matter.

Is Cameron actually exposing the historical evils of white colonizers?

That is certainly what it looks like, but all the average person is going to take away from this is that “white people = bad.”

Does the existence of an alien species expose the reality that all humans are actually one race?

It should but obviously that concept was lost on people.  It would have been best if the antagonists were portrayed with a high degree of racial diversity.  If they had done that I would probably not have any basis for criticizing the movie. 

“Can’t people just enjoy movies any more?” a person named Michelle posted on the Web site for Essence, the magazine for black women, which had 371 comments on a story debating the issue.

Good point.

Although the “Avatar” debate springs from Hollywood’s historical difficulties with race, Will Smith recently saved the planet in “I Am Legend,” and Denzel Washington appears ready to do the same in the forthcoming “Book of Eli.”

And there is no complaining about how race is dealt with in those movies. There is only complaining directed against whites.  White people need to start becoming more vocal about all the racism directed against them, not that any of those movies mentioned above are racist, but the racism in the media and academia needs to be dealt with.  Also the racism of the government, like affirmative action, which is institutionalized racism. 

Bogle, the film historian, said that he was glad Cameron made the film and that it made people think about race.

“Maybe there is something he does want to say and put across” about race, Bogle said. “Maybe if he had a black hero in there, that point would have been even stronger.”

If the hero were black there would have been absolutely NO complaining. 

___

Jesse Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press.

I wanted to share this dream I had about Obama and Janet Napolitano before I forget it.  I don’t necessarily think it was a prophetic dream, although I have had prescient dreams before, but I wanted to go ahead and share my dream and leave it up to others to draw their own conclusions about it.  Here it goes:

I don’t remember exactly how it got started, but something was happening politically on a global scale around the world.  I don’t remember what the catalyst was for it either.  At any rate, conditions in the US were changing.  The government was doing two things: trying to get everyone to undergo some type of conversion process, and geographically limiting where people could go.  People who did not subscribe to the government ideology or conform to the conversion process were not able to legally interact with the economy.  Couldn’t use the currency for some reason and were usually forced into homelessness.  Obama and Napolitano were on patrol making sure that people conformed paying house visits and whatnot.  People who didn’t want to conform were considered to be deviants in need of therapy, and were arrested and rounded up.  I can’t remember everything that was going on because I had the dream about two days ago.  Anyways, a lot of Christians and conservatives were facing homelessness and started grabbing what supplies they could and making for the wilderness areas.  Some were able to escape by disappearing into forests and other wilderness areas but others were caught.  Those who saw the trouble coming in advance and got out first were able to get away, but those who waited longer had smaller chances.

While this was going on the government was also restructuring where and how people could live.  I don’t know if anyone has ever flown at night before, but if you have, then you have probably seen splotches of light with strings of light trailing outwards giving off distinct outlines for human population clusters.  At any rate, the government was walling all of those in saying that the wilderness areas were off limits for humans.  So of course anyone who got caught trying to get into the wilderness areas would be arrested.  People in the areas designated for human habitation were being compressed so that houses were built close together, often connected, and with the areas around usually completely paved.  There was one guy who was trying to move off into the forest before the walls came, but he decided to come back in and out in order to grab some food and supplies from behind a grocery store.  The government people saw him and they chased him down, I don’t know if he got away or not.  I can’t remember if I got away either.  I just remember running further and further away, and passing through some houses which were starting to connect.  People around me were getting caught.  Eventually I came in sight of the woods and the wall, and that’s all I remember. 

Anyone who either knows me personally or who has been watching me for an extended period of time can probably anticipate that given the title this entry will not be complimentary or flattering.  For me this is a perennial issue which comes up in unwanted discourse, typically external to the internet, but given that it does come up frequently I wanted to write out my thoughts on the issue so that rather than attempt to explain it again and again I can just refer people to the written document. 

* No, I would never slap a woman like that, but that’s my impression of most western females.

“A furori normanorum libera nos Domini…”

Disclaimer:

Just as when I did my entry on Afrocentrism/Black Supremacy, I feel it necessary to post a disclaimer that I am not in any way racist.  I do not believe in evolutionism, I believe in Biblical Creation as I believe in the Bible cover to cover.  Contrary to what some may accuse me of, my personal philosophies are not really personal at all, but derived completely from the Bible using an exegesis approach.

According the the Bible:

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Acts 17: 26

and…

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 20:11

Given that, there is no Biblical grounds for racism, which is an extra-Biblical philosophy as it calls for a belief in racial stratification.  If I believed in evolutionism, I would have to believe that the different races are a product of evolution which would make racial stratification an inescapable implication, but I don’t.  The Biblical view teaches that we are all descended from Adam and Eve who were made by God, and that races only exist because of the scattering and subsequent isolation of different family units following the Tower of Babel incident (see Genesis 10-11).

That being said, if the majority of people belonging to a specific race or culture behave in a fashion which is despicable, then I tend to attribute that behavior to a cultural deficit rather than a large scale genetic one.  This view is logical given that the values people hold have a great deal to do with the way they behave and the priorities they hold, and the values which most people have are culturally determined or derived.  The discussion that follows, is going to be a critique on culture, not on any sort of alleged inherent value (or lack thereof) based on race.

My Preferences:

Although these issues are certainly larger than me as an individual, I am writing from my own perspective so I must use myself as a reference.  In terms of physical appearance I am attracted mostly to either Mongoloid or Caucasoid types.  I realize that there are variations of those types and I certainly do not find all possible variations attractive.  At the end of the entry I will post examples physical types which I consider attractive for reference.  Why is physical appearance important, especially given that physical attractiveness is somewhat subjective?  Because if the male does not find his female partner attractive then it introduces complications into the relationship which become a perennial issue, and more than likely with increasing aggravation.  In terms of personality I expect an intellectual level close to my own or higher, a level of morality close to mine or higher and Biblically derived as well.  These may seem like simple expectations, but it’s rare to find a combination of all three (physical appearance, morality, intellect) in western females.   I prefer women that are culturally eastern (Indian and east Asian), with a strong preference towards Indian women.  Indian culture has far fewer cultural deficits than does western culture.

The Cultural Deficits, or disagreements between contemporary western ideas and Biblical morality:

Marriage:  Contrary to what the political left and the entertainment industry continually convey, marriage is a sacrament.  I understand that not everyone believes that the Bible is true or valid, but by definition Christians should and must, otherwise they are outside of Christianity.  I have yet to meet any western female who openly shares my views on marriage (except perhaps for my grandmother).  Marriage is neither dating nor courtship.  In dating or courtship, if you do not like the person for any reason, no matter how ridiculous, you can exit the relationship at any time.  The same is NOT true of marriage.  Divorce is not a Biblically sanctioned back door for when you get tired of your marriage.  There are only two circumstances under which a Christian may get a divorce and be truly absolved of their marriage in the eyes of God:

³The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

 ⁴And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

 ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 ⁷They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

 ⁸He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 ⁹And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Matthew 19:3-11.

 ³²But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:32

 ¹¹And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

 ¹²And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Mark 10:11-12

There is only one other provision which allows for divorce besides a cheating spouse:

 ¹⁴For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 ¹⁵But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

1 Corinthians 7:14-15

So to recap, there only two circumstances under which a Christian may be absolved of their marriage in the eyes of God:

1). If your spouse cheats on you, adultery. 

2) If you are married to an unbeliever who decides to leave you. 

There are no other provisions.  I realize that the law in western countries allows for a legal divorce, but man’s laws are not what determines right or wrong, it is God’s laws that must be obeyed. 

What I frequently hear from western females is: “Well what about abuse?”  Abuse is not one of the provisions listed under which divorce is allowed, and for a very good reason.  Abuse, especially when women are talking about abuse, is not necessarily a concrete category, there is some subjectivity involved in defining what constitutes abuse.  Abuse can be physical violence, but there is another category called emotional abuse, and it’s easy for women, especially those more given to emotionalism, can perceive emotional abuse when in fact there is no hostile intent.  “He didn’t like my dress!!  He never likes the dresses I pick out!!  He doesn’t like my short spiky haircut, how dare he not like it!!”  OK, perhaps you just have poor taste and he’s speaking his mind, or maybe you asked him for his opinion and he’s just being honest with you.  Maybe you should have been more selective before you got married and put some actual thought into it rather than just thinking with your emotions.  Allowing divorce for “abuse” would have been foolish as it’s a slippery slope.  Does this mean that women should remain in a situation where they are getting smacked across the room?  No, of course not, but in order to be absolved of the marriage at least one of the two Biblically mandated criteria must be met.  Don’t like that or agree with it?  Then you are outside of Christianity because you are putting yourself and your own opinions above the teachings of Christ. 

However, the Bible does actually address the issue of abuse.  Unlike Islam, the Bible does not sanction, condone, or encourage any type of abuse:

 ²⁵Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 ²⁸So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 ²⁹For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Ephesians 5:25, 28-29

So the Christian man is not to abuse his wife under any circumstance, if so, then he is outside of Christianity.  This is one of the reasons why the Bible warns us that we should only marry believers.  It does not forbid marriage to an unbeliever, but it does recommend against it because there are risks involved.  On the other hand, there are also Biblical mandates regarding how women are to behave towards their husbands, mandates which western women generally do not follow.  Which brings us to the next topic.

Respect:

Most women in contemporary western cultures do not, and do not wish to, respect men.  The Bible is clear on how women are to treat their husbands:

²²Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 ²³For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 ²⁴Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Ephesians 5:22-24

Most western women do not want to do that because they have this idea that if the man does not meet their unspoken emotional fantasies and every last desire, regardless of whether or not the desire is rational, correct, or even if he has been made aware of that desire, then they don’t have to respect him.  This attitude is a common cultural more, but it is wrong.  The Bible clearly says that women are to respect their husbands and that the husband is to be the head of the household.  If you do not agree with or follow that stipulation then you are outside of Christianity.

Virginity:

I know I have already written extensively on this topic, but it really does bother me that the overwhelming majority of western women passed the age of 13 are not virgins. Sex is for marriage, it was created for enjoyment between a husband and wife, as well as procreation.  Western society teaches that sex is for love, but then their idea of what constitutes love is nebulous and subjective.

As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

Proverbs 11:22 

¹⁵Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.

 ¹⁶Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.

 ¹⁷Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.

 ¹⁸Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

 ¹⁹Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

 ²⁰And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

Proverbs 5:15-21

There are a great many more scriptures pertinent to this issue but these should be sufficient.  Even if a woman has supposedly reformed, the possibility that she is carrying an STD is by no means negated.  Furthermore, as someone who has never indulged in sex before, I cannot see how my marriage to a non-virgin would be an equitable trade.  It would be like buying a used car for the full price of a new car.  There is a serious under-supply of virgins, and of those the amount of voluntary virgins is questionable.  Being a virgin because of the absence of being propositioned has as much to do with a persons character as a person not being a thief because they have no arms.

Drinking:

The majority of women in western cultures drink.  I find drinking to be irresponsible and disgusting.  First of all, alcohol damages the brain and the liver, and some types can even cause fat to build up in the body.  There is no need to drink, but people do it as a form of escapism because the inebriated state dulls their awareness of reality and generates a false sense of euphoria.  I do not and cannot respect the woman who drinks.  Yes it is true that Jesus drank wine at a wedding, but the Bible never said that Jesus became drunk.  Being drunk is a sin, and drinking alcohol opens the door for being drunk:

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Ephesians 5:18

Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler;
       whoever is led astray by them is not wise.

Proverbs 20:1

 ²⁹ Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
       Who has strife? Who has complaints?
       Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?

 ³⁰ Those who linger over wine,
       who go to sample bowls of mixed wine.

 ³¹ Do not gaze at wine when it is red,
       when it sparkles in the cup,
       when it goes down smoothly!

 ³² In the end it bites like a snake
       and poisons like a viper.

Proverbs 23:29-32

I have not been drunk once in my life, mainly because of these Biblical teachings, but also because I know what alcohol can do to the body. 

Cultivation:

Usually in western cultures the more attractive a woman is physically, or the more sought after she is by the male gender, the less she bothers to cultivate herself as a person, or an intellectual, or as a civilized human being.  I said USUALLY, which does not imply always.  I think the reasoning behind this is that their physical attractiveness is sufficient to supply for their needs, so they do not need to be intelligent or informed.  As for me, a woman who does not know anything about anything, and who cannot think critically, is about as desireable as Rosie O’donnell is beautiful, or about as qualified to be a wife as Michael Moore is thin.  When I was in Morocco I was impressed by how many languages the average person could speak.  The young children generally knew at least two languages (typically French and Arabic), for adults it was not uncommon for them to know four to six languages.  In India it is pretty common for women to be able to speak three languages: the provincial language (Punjabi, Malayalam, Tamil, etc.), the regional language (either Hindi or Telugu), and English.  In the US most people can only speak English, and I don’t have an exact statistic, but I would say that a good half do not even speak it correctly.  Language is of course just one example, but the fact remains that the majority of women in western cultures, especially in the US and especially the physically attractive women, do not bother to learn about anything which is not immediately pertinent to the basics of their existence.

Conclusion:

So why do I have a preference for Indian women?  Because the majority of them who self identify as Christians actually follow the Christian lifestyle, and even the ones who are not Christians do a better job following the Christian lifestyle than do the majority of western “Christian” females.  Also they understand the proper male-female relationship dynamics, and they do not buck against it as frequently.  There are many women who are educated and informed but also physically attractive even by my standards.  Does that mean I am closed to the possibility of being with other kinds of women?  No, it just means that I am less motivated to search through western women given that the odds of success in finding someone who could meet my needs are considerably lower.  

Examples of what I consider physically attractive:

All of the following women are celebrities which the majority of Americans are unaware of the existence of.  I chose to use celebrities as my examples, not because celebrities have any kind of unique or special virtue, but because their photos are already public domain.

South Asian Females:

 

East Asian Females:

 

White Females:

 

It may be worth noting that neither of my white females are of western or European extraction.  I cannot say whether or not that is coencidence given that these images were compiled strictly based on what I find physically attractive. 

Since it is fairly common to hear atheists ridiculing Christians on the grounds that our beliefs are illogical and/or unsubstantiated, I would like to pose some simple questions for any atheists who might be interested in creating a positive defense for their beliefs.

1. Explain to me how a finite universe can exist without causation?

2. Explain to me how the universe could be infinite given the laws of thermodynamics?

I challenge any atheists to take up one or both of these for discussion.