Christianity is a Greater Threat to America Than Islam

The response to Arizona's immigration law by various allegedly conservative Christian sects, such as the Catholic Church and Evangelicals, has shown that modern Christianity is just another one of the forces bent on destroying America. Catholic, Evangelical, and other Christian leaders are united in opposition to this law, which essentially means they supporting America's descent into a Third World cesspool.

Neoconservatives might argue that Islam is a threat because of Islamic terrorism. But the fact is, Islamic terrorism takes place in countries that are fighting against Muslims. The subway bombings in Russia, Spain, and the UK took place because those countries are (or were) engaged in war against Muslims. As for the September 11 attacks, the reason why they occurred is because America entered into the entangling alliances that George Washington warned us of. Islam has a history of forceful expansion, but so what? America is thousands of miles from the Muslim world with oceans in between. Islamic expansion is the Europeans' problem. If Islam is a threat to them, then they should deal with it how they did back when "European" was not synonymous with "sissy," or at the very least not let millions of Muslims immigrate to their countries.

Christianity, on the other hand, is destroying America from the inside. Liberal Christians promote Marxism. Catholicism demands open borders. Evangelical Christians spend their time clamoring for more "aid" for Africa and Haiti.

Catholicism is probably the worst. I regret writing that post last month defending it from liberal criticism. The Catholic Church is at the forefront of the movement to alter the demographic face of America. Predictably, the bishops are complaining about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law. The Catholic Church loves Mexican illegal immigrants. It's okay as long as millions of Third World immigrants come here, just as long as they are Catholic. Back in the late Roman Empire, the bishops at least had spines. A lot of people don't know this, but most of the barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire were Christians. Yet, the bishops did not call on the Romans to welcome the invaders simply because they were also Christians. Instead, in many cases, the bishops led the defense of their cities and towns when the Roman legions abandoned them. Back then, the Catholics recognized that just because a group of people shares a religion with you doesn't mean you should let them move into your country.

It's not only the Catholic Church - even Evangelicals are joining in. Evangelical Christianity is a joke. Liberals incessantly bash Evangelicals due to their perceived conservatism, but aside from opposition to gay marriage and abortion, Evangelical Christians are entirely supportive of the liberal agenda. They support environmentalism, feminism (sure, they don't like abortion, but they never blame the women who have abortions), and "diversity." Evangelicals seem to have an obsession with Africa and basically follow the liberal belief that if we just give blacks more money, they will behave. The idea of Evangelical moral superiority is a joke, too. The same people who clamor about how horrible gay marriage is have daughters who go to college and become sluts and sons who pathetically try to mimic black ghetto culture.

Regardless of the reason, Christianity, both the liberal and "conservative" varieties, is killing America. I'd even go as far as to say that the United States would be better if it were predominantly Muslim, rather than filled with the spineless hypocrites who make up the bulk of modern Christianity. At least Muslims are uncompromising in their beliefs and their women don't go out in public dressed like prostitutes. True, Islam does have a tenancy to cause political violence. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, as Thomas Jefferson noted. Most Muslim cities are probably safer than the black Christian inner-cities of the United States, anyways.

Christianity will be America's downfall, due to the fact that the vast majority Christian denominations are either feminized liberal sects or "compassionate conservatives" who do their best to out-liberal the liberals. These short-sighted fools will do more damage to America than a bunch of Muslims halfway across the world ever will.

Protesting Against America: The Response to the Arizona Immigration Law

It is common for liberals to accuse Tea Party members of being seditious, treasonous, or anti-American. While it is true that there are protesters out there who hate America, they are not Tea Partiers, but rather they are the people protesting the Arizona immigration law.

America is what it is because of the fact that it was founded by Europeans and was overwhelmingly European until the 1960s. Once America becomes majority nonwhite, it will cease to be America. Oh sure, it might be called the "United States of America," but it will be America in name only. Kind of like how despite the fact that Mehmed titled himself the Roman Emperor after taking Constantinople, he had little in common with, say, Julius Caesar. "Hispanic" immigration is the major cause of the demographic shift (I put Hispanic in quotes because most so-called Hispanics are about as Spanish as Barack Obama - mestizo would be a more accurate word).

Most white people, including non-paleo conservatives, are too cowardly to speak of this openly, either because they don't want to be called a racist or because they don't want to loose their job or friends if they speak candidly on race. So instead, they talk about "illegal immigration" and all of the harms it causes, while still singing praises of diversity and support for legal immigration, despite the fact that legal immigrants bring the same problems as illegals. However, action against illegal immigrants is still good, though it won't be enough.

Arizonans took the first step in taking back our country by making illegal immigrants requiring police to verify the status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant. Predictably, the establishment was outrage. Liberals are hysterical because conservatives have finally sucked it up and passed a law that will do something.

Liberals and anti-Americans of all stripes have rushed to condemn this law as "racist" because of the fact that most illegal immigrants (especially in Arizona) are mestizos means that if police see suspicious looking mestizos who can't speak English, the police might do their job and question them, leading to them getting arrested. The fact is, crime statistics are racist. Mestizos, like blacks, simply commit more crime than whites and Asians, so they will have more negative interactions with the police, meaning more opportunity for them to be arrested under this law. If the police target mestizos over this bill, sure it might be racist, but it makes sense. When there is a spate of gang violence in the inner cities, police departments don't step up patrols in the white suburbs to be "fair," they target their resources into the areas affected, the black ghettoes. Police enforcement of this law will just follow the same logic.

Barry Soetoro labeled the law "misguided." No, Barry, people who voted for you were misguided. Arizona is simply doing the job that your federal government refuses to do.

My favorite response is the threat by liberals and mestizos to boycott the state unless the law is repealed. If liberals boycott Arizona, the state will be better off. Also, if mestizos boycott Arizona, does that mean all of the Mexicans in Arizona will go back to Mexico? If they do, that will pretty much make the law moot.

However, it's a sure bet sure the Soetoro Justice Department or the ACLU will find a liberal Jewish kritarch to strike down the law because it violates one of the penumbras of one of the Amendments to the Constitution.

Despite that, and the fact that Jan Brewer lauded diversity and condemned racial profiling when she signed the law, I am optimistic. This law shows that there are whites in this country who understand the true problems of America and are looking to solve them. Arizona's law is the first step in taking our country back the anti-white America-haters who control it. That is why liberals are so determined to stop it.

(It occurs to me that white liberals should be deported to Mexico. There is plenty of rich, luscious diversity in that country for them to enjoy. I'm sure they would love it more thanthe horrible racist, sexist, and homophobic America)

"Middle-class" Welfare Queens

Over at Alternet, they posted an article about a "middle-class" single mother named Nan Mooney complaining about the fact that if her state cuts daycare subsidies, her artificial middle-class existence will cease to exist. Of course, since she's on a form of welfare (her subsidized daycare) she is not middle-class, but is just a lower-class person pretending to be middle-class thanks to the government (kind of like black affirmative action workers) or grew up middle-class but made low-class decisions and is being bailed out by the government.

This article exemplifies all that is wrong with America - from the welfare dependency, to the fatherless children and the sense of entitlement people like Mooney have.

One Thursday morning last month I took a break from my job as a journalist and freelance writer and, after dropping off my 2-year-old at his subsidized daycare, drove myself and my 10-week-old daughter across town to a cupcake shop. Our mission? To decorate Cupcake-grams that momsrising.org, a national non-profit that targets family and children's issues, planned to deliver to every last member of the Washington State legislature along with a note about the critical importance of early childhood care and learning.

I didn't do this just for the fun or the frosting. I did it because my livelihood was at stake.

Washington State had threatened deep budget cuts in a number of areas, including slicing $30 million from the Working Connections Childcare program that helped to fund my childcare. I'm a single parent. I work hard to support my family of three but I don't make anywhere near enough to pay the $2,000-plus a month I'd need to put two kids in full-time daycare. Working Connections gives me the freedom to work and therefore feed, clothe and house my children. If it goes, I'm screwed.

Note that there is no mention of a father or husband. Indeed, she fails to mention him at all in the article. Perhaps she should have thought about the difficulties of raising three children before she decided to become a career woman with three kids. True, the father (probably fathers) of her children might not pay much in child support, could be incapacitated or dead, and might have abandoned her and her children. However, if that was the case, she probably would have mentioned it to gain the sympathy of her reader. She would have appeared as a hardworking woman who fell on tough times rather than being a dumb slut who bit off more than she could chew.

Single career women with kids don't need a husband, remember? They are strong and independent women. Well, not quite independent, since they essentially use Big Government as a surrogate husband.

If she loses the subsidies, she says she will be screwed. Good. If more single mothers like her end up poor, maybe women will realize that both choosing to be a single mother and trying to live a middle class existence is impossible without some form of external support.

Though the cupcake protest may be an original spin on things, our merry band of frosters was far from alone. In Buffalo (childcare subsidies eliminated for four in 10 children), in Chicago (proposed $150 million cuts in human services, among them childcare), in Brooklyn (15 daycare centers slated to close in July) and in California (proposed cut of 18,000 childcare spaces), protesters are hitting the phone lines and the streets because they recognize something the legislators and the mainstream media seem to have missed: Child care really matters.

Due to the recession, tax revenues are down. Legislators can either 1) raise taxes or 2) cut spending. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to significantly raise taxes during a recession and take more money from the very people who provide others with jobs. That leaves spending cuts, which no government agency is immune to right now. Even police departments are receiving funding cuts.

For the majority of today's families, child care is an expensive but all too necessary fact of life. In 1975, nearly half of families with children consisted of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Today, only one in five families still embody that traditional set-up. In fact mothers are now primary breadwinners--making as much or more than their spouse or filling the role of single working parent --in nearly four in 10 families. And as more mothers flood the workplace, families have to shoulder the often dizzying costs of finding someone else to watch their kids. Getting help with childcare isn't an added perk like a parking space in the company garage. It's a lynchpin, one that can affect healthy child development, job security and the frayed economic realities of today's low-income families.

In other words, liberals destroyed traditional America and are shocked at their results. Congratulations, you destroyed the family wage and made it impossible to support a middle-class family on one income, turned women into sluts, and turned men from being beta providers to being gaming pseudo-alphas and basement dwellers. Everything has a consequence. Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore consequences.

Also, she used the word "lynchpin" on Alternet. I'm surprised the editors allowed it, because it contains the word "lynch," which they probably think is a racist word (like "looter").

People need to appreciate that funding quality child are isn't just a work support issue, it's also a child development issue," says Danielle Ewen, the director of childcare and early learning at the Center for Law and Social Policy. "If we don't invest in early childhood care and learning, kids will arrive at school unprepared to learn. It will affect the number of children with special needs. It will affect graduation rates. It goes to the heart of what our public education system is all about."

For years, kids started elementary school at six or seven years old and they did well. America became the most powerful nation in the world without having kids start school when they were two or three. It sounds like Ewen is just another one of those liberal "experts" who wants to destroy childhood. Thirteen years of liberal indoctrination must not be enough.

For many of us, childcare subsidies play a critical role in the economic infrastructure, bridging the gap to provide a service as essential as food or housing. About 30 percent of all low-income families using child care centers, and 16 percent using an in-home care giver receive subsidies, about 14 percent of those who are federally eligible. Not only do such subsidies ensure that parents can work, they also place those children in healthy environments focused on development and learning. If subsidies disappear, many low-income families are forced into an impossible situation in which their income is less than the cost of paying someone to watch their child.

Once again, liberals fail to realize that actions have consequences. If these "low-income families" (liberal code words for "single black women and their brood of bastards with different fathers") can't support their spawn, then they should not engage in sex. Pretty much everyone other than pre-contact Australian aborigines and young children understands the relationship between sex and women having babies. It really is not a difficult concept.

It's a lifesaver," says Francine Almash, a Brooklyn resident and single parent who relies on subsidies to pay for daycare for her three children. Almash, who works as a freelance editor and splits her time between telecommuting and going in to the office, pays $5 a week to send her kids to a city-funded daycare center near her home. "Without the subsidies I'd have to pay a minimum of about $2,100 a month, even to put my kids in a city-funded daycare. There's no way I could possibly afford that. It's almost my entire income."

No liberal article demanding the government to spend money on something would be complete without a sob story.

Francine Almash is raising three kids in New York City while making around $25,000. She could at least move to a city with a lower cost of living. But that would involve "personal responsibility," a concept that is an anathema to liberals. What a dumb bitch.

When asked what she would do if her subsidy were cut, there's a long silence.

I don't know," Almash finally says. "I really don't know. Maybe I could try to keep one kid home? I'd probably just have to quit working and go on public assistance."

Perhaps Almash should have thought about this before she decided to raise three children as a single mother in New York City - not exactly a cheap place to live - while working as an editor. It's interesting to note that the author of this piece is also a single mother journalist. I wonder why so many single mothers are writers? If they are supporting a family on one income, they should probably

For families like Almash's, the loss of childcare subsidies would be devastating. The subsequent scramble for any kind of care, let alone a licensed quality provider, would force them to play fast and loose with their children's well-being.

In other words, they will have to deal with the consequences off their actions. This is what adults do.

"There are issues of child development and child safety at stake," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress. "Without subsidies, more kids will wind up in unstable care situations that the parents are managing day to day. They may be shuffled around to friends or relatives or even be left home alone to take care of themselves."

There's another solution: single, career women shouldn't have bastard children. And if they do decide to have children, get married first so someone can watch the kid. As for kids having to be home alone, I understand the concern about younger kids, but once kids are of a certain age (say 9 or 10) is it really that big of a deal to have them walk home from school and stay home alone for an hour and a half until their mom comes come?

For many, the juggling required to grapple with suboptimal childcare can lead to taking days off work, arriving late and leaving early. As a result, parents risk losing those same jobs subsidies are meant to help facilitate. In addition, cuts in childcare dollars mean that childcare workers, many of whom are women and many of whom are single parents, now face having their hours cut or their jobs eliminated.

"In part, we see childcare subsidies as a job program," Boushey says. "Without reliable childcare, many low-income parents are forced into a position where they are less consistent on the job because they are dealing with childcare-related issues. They risk losing jobs and losing promotions. And in a tight job market like we have now, driving people out of the workplace is the last thing we want to be doing."

A more effective job program would be to slash the welfare/warfare state, abolish the income and capital gains tax, and allow wealthy people and small businessmen to create jobs. Also, expelling all illegal immigrants and many legal immigrants would help, too. That would be a far more effective job program than providing single women with an incentive to pop out bastards. It would also be a lot better for society than subsidizing the increase in the number of criminals and teen pregnancies that result from single motherhood.

What also seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle is how much such cuts could potentially cost individual states and the country as a whole. If I lost my daycare subsidy I would have to turn to food stamps, Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, Section 8, and every other social service out there to support my zero-income family. I would wind up the kind of financial burden no one's looking to take on these days. In addition, every child who doesn't get what they need in terms of early childhood care and learning risks costing the system more down the line in the form of behavioral problems or poor school performance.

If she would end up on welfare if she lost her daycare subsidy, she really isn't living a middle-class existence as she claims. She is living one artificially created with taxpayer dollars.

Also, due to the fact that her children are being raised by a single mother, they already are likely to have behavioral problems and poor school performance.

"Childcare faces a serious threat right now," says Ewen. "The short-term implications of the recession are very bad. We could see states making tremendous cuts, particularly once the stimulus money expires. The hard truth is that we can't make any reforms without resources. We know what we need to do -- develop a system in which the highest quality care is available to the widest range of families. Now it's a question of finding the means to do it."

The Obama administration seems committed to early childhood care and learning, pledging an additional $1.6 billion toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant in fiscal year 2011 (a pledge that still has to make it through Congress). Advocates hit a major stumbling block when the Early Learning Challenge Grant --$8 billion stretched across eight years targeted for education and learning for children from birth to age 5 --wasn't included in the final health care bill passed by the Senate. Now it's up to Congress to allocate more money to the states and also to states to put their own resources on the table.

Naturally, Obama and the Democrats will step in and further subsidize the destruction of the family with stolen money.

We can only hope they see the bigger issues at stake. Investing in childcare means investing in the future of our children and our education system, in job growth and creation.

She becomes very Orwellian in this sentence and the following ones.

By "investing" in childcare, she really means "take money from hardworking people via taxes and give it to single women." That is not investing, it is taking money from the people who invest.

It isn't a handout.

...

If this isn't a handout, then what is?

It's a crucial step toward helping individuals to help themselves.

No, it leads to the exact opposite. When someone gets $2000 a month from the government, as Mooney appears to, this does not cause them to take care of themselves. If they took care of themselves, that money would go way and they would have to pay $2000 a month out of their own pocket, so there is no incentive to help themselves. People realize they do not need to take care of themselves because the government will do it better than they can. This is one of the problems with welfare and why it is so destructive.

If Mooney wanted to take care of herself, she should have either not gotten pregnant or got married to the father of her children. Or she could have exercised this "choice" that feminists are always clamoring about.

Nan Mooney is the author of "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

Perhaps if Mooney is poor enough that her middle-class existence is endangered, she should find a more lucrative job than writing progressive political books for a non-profit organization (Beacon Press is run by a Unitarian group). And the reason why we are "not keeping up with our parents" is because liberals like her destroyed the society that our parents lived in, though I'm sure in her book she blames it on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

I hate single mothers. I really do. I don't hate widows or mothers whose husbands/boyfriends turn out to be deadbeats, criminals, or otherwise worthless, but I hate single women who decide to have children knowing there will be no father in their children's lives and then expect everyone else (via government taxation) to pay for their decisions. Not only do I hate ghetto black welfare queens running around with their brood of five misbehaving nigglets, but I also hate "middle-class" white career women like this who have fatherless children and whine about the price of daycare (and the fact that school hours don't work well with office hours, that their employer won't give them time off to see their kids' school plays, etc.).

Nan Mooney is an embodiment of everything wrong with America.

"Looter" is a Racist Word

In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a column headlined "Looters in Loafers." Joshua Holland (who appears to be the result of a dyke having a sex change operation) calls this "hopelessly naive" and implies that looters is a racist word because only black people are called "looters." To support his claim, he resurrects the set of pictures taken in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the caption says that a black kid "looted" food, but the caption for another picture claims that two white people "found" food. Of course, he doesn't mention the plainly visible fact that the pictures were taken by two different photographers working for two different companies.

Everything is racist to liberals. It is impossible for white people to do, say, or write anything that liberals will not find some way to turn into racism.

Why Was the Plaza Safe This Weekend?

Last Sunday I wrote about the black wilding on Kansas City's Country Club Plaza last Saturday. While the MSM, police, and politicians were too cowardly to mention the fact that the "distrubances" were caused by large numbers of black "youths," they did understand that if the wildings occurred again, the Plaza would be doomed. The police were out in large numbers (including mounted officers and a sort of mobile command center) and would ticket parents whose children violated the curfew, Mayor Mark Funkhouser and the KCPD chief spent the evening on the Plaza with their families, and a group of 60 black men led by Alvin Brooks (the man who Funkhouser defeated to be elected mayor) wandered the Plaza to ensure that if large numbers of "youths" showed up, they would not cause any problems. Naturally, the Plaza was safe last night.

This incident is an example of why I am critical of libertarians who complain about "the police state." The fact is, if you want to maintain law and order in an area populated by NAMs, particularly blacks, you must have a police state.

The Kansas City Star notes "Hordes of dressy prom-goers ruled the entertainment area instead of the groups of unruly youths who swarmed the streets the previous Saturday night." Of course, they leave out the essential difference between the "prom goers" and the "unruly youths" - the fact that most of these prom-goers were white suburbanites, while these unruly youths were entirely black. The cowardice of the MSM is disgusting.

The plaza was safe this weekend because the "youths" who strolled it were white, not black, and because the police and community activists patrolled the Plaza to prevent blacks from wilding again. I'm sure Kansas City's liberal media will attempt to come up with plenty of alternative explanations, though. It should be fun to laugh at them.

"They're Just a Bunch of Old White Men"

In the last few days, with the Tax Day Tea Party protests in the news, I've often heard variations of that statement used to describe the Tea Partiers. Leaving aside the fact that families, young people, and middle-aged people attended the protests and the fact that women are about as equally represented as men, this statement shows just how much liberals hate whites, America, and basically western civilization. It implies that soon, these old white men will be gone and a new era of DIVERSITY can reign.

Whites created America and have sustained it. When whites are a minority, America will turn into a Brasil del Norte, with all of the problems inherent to a country populated and run by blacks and mestizos. These "old white men" are the reason why America is America.

"Sharing" Housework

Whenever I see a man pushing a stroller or wandering around with a baby in a papoose I wonder if since he does his share of childcare, does his wife mow the lawn? (And before any FRAs start complaining, no I do not have a problem with fathers taking care of their children, I just think the sight of men wandering around carrying babies in papooses looks ridiculous and emasculating.) Feminists, their "pro-feminist" mangina allies, and women in general often whine that men don't do their share of housework, but men do plenty of housework, except that it is outside or if it is inside it involves using strength and/or getting dirty.

Most of the people who I've seen changing tires, fixing cars, mowing lawns, landscaping and exterior decorating, doing fix-it work, cleaning gutters, and painting houses are men. True, this work might not take as much time as women's indoor work, but it is a lot more tiring and in some cases, dangerous. Plus, a lot of women's work is mostly automated. Women don't wash the clothes with a washboard and string them on a clothesline, they just dump them in the washer and dryer and later fold them. Likewise, cooking really isn't very labor intensive for the most part (unless you are preparing ingredients, mixing them, or stirring them), especially since most American women just throw something into the microwave or oven. And in households where the man works and the woman stays at home, he spends 8 hours a day working, so the least she can do is the housework.

To answer my question in the first paragraph, I'm guessing that the wives/girlfriends of men who wander around carrying babies in papooses while their wives work, shop, or visit friends probably don't repay the favor by doing yardwork. The kind of men they are married to are the kind of nice guys that believe that "equality" means women have no responsibilities or are "pro-feminist" manginas who are too meek to stand up to women (because that would be patriarchal and sexist).

Mass Effect 2

Recently I finished playing Mass Effect 2. It was easily the best computer game I've played. I'll be posting a review sometime in the near future.

Blacks Ruin Everything

"Kansas City Police were busy on Saturday night after massive crowds took over the Plaza. Some people compared the wild scene to rioting in downtown L.A."

Whenever large numbers of young blacks gather together, whether it is in South Africa, New Orleans, Congo, Chicago, or Paris, chaos, destruction, and violence are sure to follow due to their low average IQ and different social order. Whether it is a rap "concert," basketball game, track-and-field event, a movie, or just a Saturday night in a shopping district, anything that attracts blacks will attract trouble.

In Kansas City, Missouri, the Country Club Plaza is an upscale outdoor shopping center encompassing a few city blocks. It has a number of restaurants and stores, all of which are relatively pricey and attract large numbers of suburban whites, usually from Johnson County, Kansas. Unfortunately, it is on the northern end of an oasis in a typical urban wasteland. If you go to the west you will find the bar district of Westport (which is relatively safe because it attracts mostly whites), if you go south you will find expensive homes and yuppie neighborhoods. If you go southeast you will find the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Rockhurst University. However, to the north and east are black ghettos.

Due to private security and police, the Plaza had managed to remain relatively safe from black wildings that have plauged so many other locales around the United States. Until now.

On Saturday night, hundreds of Negro "youths" went rampaging like a bachelor herd of wildebeests. Between 500 and 1000 Negroes swarmed the Plaza, damaging property, attacking actual shoppers, harassing motorists by banging on windows and jumping in front of cars, firing off guns or fireworks, breaking store windows, robbing people, seriously injuring at least one person, and fighting amongst themselves. The police had to block of roads and unleash pepper spray on these clowders of chaos. Naturally, the liberal media referred to the Negroes as "youths" without detailing their race, but non-establishment sources revealed that they were black (as most people who read the MSM stories probably suspected).

Many whites in the Kansas City metropolitan area are leary of the Plaza as a result of this and if another wilding occurs, the Plaza will die. It might even die as a result of this one. The fact that it occurred on a prom night when many suburban white kids were eating at the Plaza restaurants will make the damage much worse - many suburban parents will avoid the Plaza and ban their children from going there after this. Suburban whites in general will soon realize that the Plaza is no longer safe and will retreat to their suburban entertainment centers, leaving the Plaza to rot just as Bannister Mall did years ago for the same reason. Naturally, Negro leaders will whine about how racist whites are because they don't want to share the Plaza with blacks, just as they did when Bannister Mall failed. Of course, if the Plaza was saved by allowing the police and security to kick out miscreants or prevent them from entering, the Negroes would object to that as racist, too.

Segregation is reviled by most people today, but was segregation really bad compared to the black kleptocracy that we have now? The fact is, segregation existed (and not only in the South) prior to the 1960s because whites understood the fact that crime, chaos, and violence follow blacks. A wilding like this would never have happened in Kansas City in the 1960s and before - during the MLK riots, for example, suburban police blocked off entrances to the suburbs and prevented blacks from entering. Back then it was understood who the troublemakers were and how to stop them.

Businesses should be allowed to ban Negro youths and the police should not be restrained from blocking them from entering white areas to prevent wildings like this from occurring. Some may say that this would be a "police state" and no one can suggest this and still call himself a libertarian. The problem is, libertarianism works if there is a population of people who respect others' rights to life, liberty, and property. Blacks, however, do not. Libertarianism will not work in places with large black populations where the "youths" spend their time ruining everyone else's lives.

(Heh. I bet this post will cause me to be delinked from a few blogs. Also, if anyone objects to me using the word "Negro" in this post, go complain to the United Negro College Fund while you're at it.)

Tea Partiers and the Half of Americans Who Don't Pay Taxes

At Feministe, Jill Filipovic remarks on the fact that nearly half of US households pay no federal income tax, as if taxes really aren't that bad because many people don't even pay them and so maybe "anti-tax conservatives" and Tea Partiers should just shut up and go home.

The fact is, many of the Tea Partiers are well aware of this fact and are angry about it (conservative anti-tax organizations have been reporting it for years). They are upset that the money they work hard for is redistributed to "poor" people through the many government welfare programs (it's funny how these "poor" people who can somehow afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, electronics, "urban" clothing, and expensive rims, but that's a topic for another post). If you go to a Tea Party protest you will find that the people are working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and even some wealthy people. Virtually all of them are white. And not only do they have to live in expensive neighborhoods and commute long distances to avoid NAMs, but they have to subsidize NAMs' (and lumpen whites') lifestyles, as they are the ones paying the taxes. The Tea Partiers are too afraid to say it, but most of them are probably aware of the racial composition of their group versus that of the people whose existence they pay for.

Each year when they put away money to pay for their young child's future college education, they pay for part of others' in the form of Pell Grants. When they work every day to feed their families, they pay for fat ghetto queens and their broods to consume junk food with food stamps. When they work to pay the mortgages on their houses in nice, expensive white flight suburbs, they pay for Mexican immigrants to pour into the apartments of those neighborhoods with Section 8. When they spend thousands of dollars each year for daycare due to requiring two incomes to support the high cost of a modern suburban lifestyle, they pay for ghetto sluts to nest their myriad children in virtually free child care. While they work because they were raised to believe that's what adults do, they pay for the lumpen to be motivated to do so with tax credits and refunds such as the "Making Work Pay" credit and the EITC (which, by the way, basically cancels out the FICA taxes that the lumpen pay).

Yes, I realize my language in the last paragraph was probably inflammatory, racist, classist, and insensitive. But I don't care. If anyone doubts me, then drive through a white suburb during the day where you will find everyone either at school or studying for it, staying at home with children, working at local businesses, or out of the area due to a long commute. Then drive through a black inner city and look at all of the people driving around playing loud rap music, sitting around drinking, and standing around on street corners doing nothing.

It's ironic that blacks continue to whine about slavery that ended 145 years ago, since in the present-day whites have to work from January 1 to April 9 to pay for them to live.

Women March Topless in Maine & Get Mad When Men Watch Them

A few days ago, in Portland, Maine, two dozen women decided to protest the double standard in America regarding male vs. female toplessness by marching topless along a main street. Predictably, this rather unusual attracted the attention of many men, many of whom took pictures of this public event. The Portland Press Herald provides a picture, although it is a rear view. Judging from their pale skin, short and ragged hair, chunky physiques, and the Mirror of Venus painted on the back of one of them, it's safe to say that they were probably feminists and hipster girls, which makes me wonder why so many men were taking pictures in the first place.

Generally, women who go around topless protesting the toplessness double standard tend to be feminists and lesbians, usually ugly ones. Maybe they would have better luck fighting the double standard if they brought good-looking non-man-hating women to their protests, like PETA does. Until then, toplessness in America will be associated with fat, ugly feminists, lesbians, and goddess-worshipers and the double standard will not vanish because men will associate publicly bare breasts with the flabby one of such women.

The funniest part of this story is the fact that the marchers were mad that they attracted a crowd:

"Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on."

Societal attitudes are not going to be changed by a single march. This is probably the first time nearly two dozen women walked topless through this city - it was an abnormal event. If a jester walked along the sidewalk with a dancing bear, it probably would probably attract a photographing crowd, too (or maybe everyone would have ran away in fear). Even if the double standard is eroded, do they really think no one would notice a bunch of women walking topless along a street? In Europe, it is common for women to go topless on beaches, but if twenty women marched topless along a main street in Barcelona or Bucharest, would the men really ignore them?

"However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers."

Note the typical feminist/liberal response. If you don't like what someone is using, shut them down somehow. It worked on Tom Tancredo, Ann Coulter, American Rennaisance, et al. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian conservatives who were upset by this legal (in Maine female public toplessness is not a crime) protest, yet they didn't attempt to interfere.

How exactly is she going to discourage oglers? They are in a public place, so the oglers have as much right to be there as the marchers do. A lot of these oglers were probably men who had legitimate business shopping, eating, or working downtown; they weren't protesters trying to stir up trouble. The "aggressive" part suggests that she intends to use force to stop the oglers, which will result in them getting arrested (and probably praised on feminist blogs). There are instances in which getting arrested at protests is beneficial to the protesters, but the public wouldn't have much sympathy for a bunch of topless fat, ugly feminists and lesbians who attack men who watch them as they walk around half-naked in public. If they get "aggressive," it will probably just backfire on them.

Also, if the whole point is to draw attention to the double standard, it is pointless to discourage people from watching their protest. Generally, people who march around expressing their point of view want people to notice them.

However, I admit that I am also enraged that men were ogling the marchers. Really, what kind of man enjoys watching a bunch of fat feminists and man-hating lesbians walking around exposing their flabby breasts? There must be a lot of weird fetishists in Maine...

RapeLay and Ignorant Video Game Bashers

Feminists and the Old Media have rediscovered RapeLay, the Japanese rape simulation game that video game bashers love to use to attack gaming.

Before I discuss that, I wanted to mention an ignorant video game bashing (and male-bashing) article from the Times-Herald of Dubuque, Iowa, which I found via GiantBomb. I am posting the article in its entirety due to the fact that online newspaper articles, especially those from papers with relatively low circulation, have a tendency to link rot.

Monday, March 29, 2010
Change 'culture of violence'
Teach boys that abusing women and degrading others will not be tolerated.
BY TIM MOOTHART

You and I began life as a being without a propensity to harm others. All of us, yes even the mass murderer on death row, began life as a child who would never think of harming another human being.

However:

* Some 18 percent of women in the United States have been victims of a completed or attempted rape.

* Riverview Center in Dubuque served 1,100 children and adults this year related to violence.

Who is performing this violence?

* Some 64 percent of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date.

* Typical perpetrators are not aliens or misfits. They are your neighbors, your relatives, your co-workers.

What happened?

Jackson Katz, noted expert on gender violence, says, "Most men who assault women are not so much disturbed as disturbingly normal ... they are influenced by broad cultural beliefs about manhood that shape their psyches and identities. And ours. They not only learn to be violent, they learn that violence is manly."

Yes, all of us together have created a "culture of violence" and live with its logical outcome, a society racked with pain and suffering inflicted upon each other by acts of violence. Violence is a learned behavior and all of us have been its teachers.

What can we do?

Like any skill or learned trait, we can learn to approach gender violence from a different perspective. We can all be teachers of a new approach.

First, it requires all of us to believe that WE have the responsibility to change our culture. It's not just the perpetrators or "them" that have to change, it's all of us.

Next, reject the idea that violence is inevitable and that some men abuse women. Hold yourself to a higher standard. Boys learn how to be men from observing other men. In Dubuque, let's make sure they observe that degrading women and abusing others is not part of manhood and will not be tolerated.

Take a look inside yourself. Men, do you believe that men should be in control in a relationship? Do you act as if males are "the stronger gender"? Do you treat and talk about others as if they were objects rather than fellow humans?

Show our children how to respect others even when you disagree with them or they have hurt you in some way.

Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."

Join us as we work to change the culture of our community and our attitude toward gender violence. Help us educate all community members on its negative impact and what ALL of us can do to prevent it by the way we live.

Together we can learn to eliminate gender and domestic violence! What are you teaching?

The article reeks of the chivalrous male-bashing common among conservative nice guy manginas. He writes about how we need to teach boys to respect women and girls, etc., etc. Of course, no mention is made of teaching girls to respect boys and men. I am used to reading that kind of drivel so to me that was not the dumbest part. This was:

Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."

It's obvious that this man has never played or even researched much about the GTA series. He's just a lemming who read an article in the newspaper or saw a report on Fox News telling about how players in GTA can commit violence against women.

The truth is, GTA has less violence against women than most modern games. True, you can have sex with prostitutes, then kill them and take the money, but this is not part of the main storyline. Pretty much all of the enemies you fight and kill in GTA, including both police and criminals are male (which is odd considering women make up like 20% of most big city police departments), unlike in many games where there are many female enemies. So I wonder why Tim Moothart didn't say that GTA disrespected men?

Via Feministing, I found a story from CNN regarding a video game called RapeLay. First off, RapeLay has been out for four years and RapeLay has been known among gamers and the Internet subculture for a few years. It is pathetic that CNN is only catching on now. The Old Media is utterly useless when it comes to Internet-related news.

Anyways, the whole point of RapeLay is to rape women. It seems sick, right? But when you think about it, there are a lot of sicker games out there. In first-person shooters you slaughter hundreds of people, including unarmed civilians in some cases, to complete the game. In games where there is some sort of morality system present, such as alignment in Dungeons and Dragons-based games and the Renegade/Paragon system of Mass Effect, the player can do horrible things to people. In Mass Effect 2, you can beat information out of a prisoner (there's actually a few parts of the game that involve beating information out of people) and execute unarmed civilians and surrendered enemies if you go for the Renegade path. In Bioshock, you can kill little girls if you play as an evil character. True, you aren't required to do evil acts like you are in RapeLay, but the potential is still there and a lot of players do so.

Predictably feminists are outraged over it. I agree that stores should probably not be selling it, but their public outrage is only going to cause it to spread even further. It is something known as the Streisand effect - things that people try to censor on the Internet end up getting spread around more than they would have if they were just left alone. Indeed, CNN shockingly notes that the game went viral as a result of the feminists' protests and people can download it through tubes of the Internets. Who would've thought?

Of course, a bunch of feminist activists and Old Media reporters - or do I repeat myself? - wouldn't know anything about the Streisand effect or Internet culture in general. Which is probably a good thing. If they dug deeper into Internet culture, they would undoubtedly be horrified by what they would find, and we would get even more articles like this.

Predictably, feminists have a solution and it involves government regulation. For the article, CNN "interviewed" Taina Bien-Aime from Equality Now, one of the people who helped get the game removed from the shelves last year. Bien-Aime wants Japan "to ban all games that promote and simulate sexual violence, sexual torture, stalking and rape against women and girls." The fact is, as distasteful as games like RapeLay are, they do not hurt anyone. 0s and 1s are being "raped," not real women. Also, if governments can ban RapeLay, they will probably try to ban violent games and games with politically incorrect content later on. Yes, that involves a slippery slope, but when discussing government regulations the slippery slope is not a fallacy, it is generally a legitimate concern.

Perhaps Taina Bien-Aime and her Equality Now should put more effort into fighting real, tangible oppression towards women, instead of calling for governments to censor video games they don't like in First World countries where women are very well off.

Guam Might Tip Over into the Ocean

According to Hank Johnson, a black congressman from Georgia, this might happen if the military stations more Marines on the small US island. Fortunately, the admiral he is questioning does "not anticipate that."

It's sickening that people this stupid regulate everything about Americans' lives - from our healthcare down to the lightbulbs we use. At least in Plato's Republic they were ruled by philosopher kings.