Friday, January 25, 2013

Blacks hate whites, but risk death to be white

Africa: Where black is not really beautiful

Nomasonto Mnisi says her skin colour is "a self-esteem issue"

Related Stories

South Africa is marketed to the world as Mandela's rainbow nation, where everyone is proud of their race and heritage. But for some black South Africans there is such a thing as being too black.
A recent study by the University of Cape Town suggests that one woman in three in South Africa bleaches her skin. The reasons for this are as varied as the cultures in this country but most people say they use skin-lighteners because they want "white skin".
Local musician Nomasonto "Mshoza" Mnisi, now several shades lighter, says her new skin makes her feel more beautiful and confident.
She has been widely criticised in the local media and social networking sites for her appearance but the 30-year-old says skin-bleaching is a personal choice, no different from breast implants or a having nose job.

Nomasonto Mnisi: Before & After

Nomasonto before and after

Start Quote

Part of it is a self-esteem issue and I have addressed that and I am happy now”
Nomasonto Mnisi Musician
"I've been black and dark-skinned for many years, I wanted to see the other side. I wanted to see what it would be like to be white and I'm happy," she says candidly.
Over the past couple of years Ms Mnisi has had several treatments. Each session can cost around 5,000 rand (£360; $590), she tells the BBC.
Unlike many in the country, she uses high-end products which are believed to be safer than the creams sold on the black market but they are by no means risk-free, doctors say.
Costly beauty Ms Mnisi says she does not understand the criticism about her new appearance.


An ad campaign for a skin-whitening cream that promises results in 15 days has ignited fierce debates on Senegalese social networks since September.
"Khess Petch" - loosely translated from the local Wolof as "All White" or "All Light"- printed on huge placards all around town portray a woman "before" and "after" she'd used the cream - she is seen black and then fair white.
Nearly 2,000 people signed an online petition to bring the adverts down, and soon after, a counter-campaign "Nuul Kuuk" was set up defending Black skin pride.
Doctors at the main dermatology hospital service in Dakar say they receive an average of 200 women per week in cases related to the use of skin-whitening products.
Reports have been broadcast on television about the risks of using whitening creams following the huge controversy.
Many women with bad skin damage have sought to encourage others to stop using these products.
"I bitterly regret having done that to myself," a 51-year-old woman told me. "But girls and women with fairer skin would always seduce more men," she said.
She wears a scarf to hide a long stain and spots that the products left on her skin. "It is ugly and it itches," she says.
The health minister eventually met with Nuul Kuuk activists who were told that current laws couldn't forbid ads campaign for these products, which are labelled as cosmetics.
The ads for Khess Petch are now down, but other creams have just started their own campaign.
"Yes, part of it is a self-esteem issue and I have addressed that and I am happy now. I'm not white inside, I'm not really fluent in English, I have black kids. I'm a township girl, I've just changed the way I look on the outside," she says.
The dangers associated with the use of some of these creams include blood cancers such as leukaemia and cancers of the liver and kidneys, as well as a severe skin condition called ochronosis, a form of hyper-pigmentation which causes the skin to turn a dark purple shade, according to senior researcher at the University of Cape Town, Dr Lester Davids.
"Very few people in South Africa and Africa know the concentration of the toxic compounds that are contained in the products on the black market and that is concerning. We need to do more to educate people about these dangerous products," says Dr Davids.
He says over the past six years there has been a significant increase in the number of skin lighteners flooding local markets, some of them legal and some illegal. This is what prompted their research.
Local dermatologists say they are seeing more and more patients whose skin has been damaged by years of bleaching - most of the time irreversibly.
"I'm getting patients from all over Africa needing help with treating their ochronosis. There is very little we can do to reverse the damage and yet people are still in denial about the side-effects of these products," says Dr Noora Moti-Joosub.
In many parts of Africa and Asia, lighter-skinned woman are considered more beautiful, are believed to be more successful and more likely to find marriage.
The origin of this belief in Africa is not clear, but researchers have linked it to Africa's colonial history where white skin was the epitome of beauty.
Some have also suggested that people from "brown nations" around the world tended to look down upon dark-skinned people.
'I don't like black skin' The World Health Organization has reported that Nigerians are the highest users of such products: 77% of Nigerian women use the products on a regular basis. They are followed by Togo with 59%; South Africa with 35%; and Mali at 25%.
Jackson Marcelle Studies have found that men are also beginning to bleach their skin
South Africa banned products containing more than 2% of hydroquinone - the most common active ingredient in in the 1980s. But it is easy to see creams and lotions containing the chemical on the stalls here. Some creams contain harmful steroids and others mercury.
While skin-lightening creams have been used by some South Africans for many years, they have become more common recently with the influx of people from countries such as Nigeria and Democratic Republic of Congo, where they are even more widespread.
In a bustling African market in the centre of Yeoville in Johannesburg, it is skin lighteners galore.
Walking through this community is like walking through a mini-Africa: you can find someone from any part of the continent here.
I notice that many of the women have uncharacteristically light skin faces while the rest of their bodies are darker.
Some even have scabby burns on their cheeks from the harmful chemicals used to strip the skin of pigmentation.
They don't want to speak openly about why they bleach their skin, or even have their pictures taken.
Psychologists say there are also underlying reasons why people bleach their skin - but low self-esteem and, to some degree self-hate, are a common thread.
But skin-lightening is not just a fascination and obsession of women. Congolese hair stylist Jackson Marcelle says he has been using special injections to bleach his skin for the past 10 years. Each injection lasts for six months.
"I pray every day and I ask God, 'God why did you make me black?' I don't like being black. I don't like black skin," he tells me.
Skin lightening creams in a market in Yeoville, Johannesburg Skin lightening creams are popular in many parts of Africa
Mr Marcelle - known in this busy community as Africa's Michael Jackson - says his mother used to apply creams on him when he was young in order to make him appear "less black".
"I like white people. Black people are seen as dangerous; that's why I don't like being black. People treat me better now because I look like I'm white," he adds.
Entrenched in the minds of many Africans from a young age is the adage "if it's white, it's all right", a belief that has chipped away at the self-esteem of millions.
Until this changes, no amount of official bans or public information campaigns will stop people risking serious damage to their health in the pursuit of what they think is beauty.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Ending gun violence requires commitment, not all of it voluntary

Coulter: Ending gun violence requires commitment, not all of it voluntary

Coulter: Ending gun violence requires commitment, not all of it voluntary
The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill, which would actually do something to reduce these mass shootings.
Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about “assault weapons” and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring “the gun lobby” to “children.” (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.)
Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women.
Just don’t expect a vote. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot afford a vote on any of these nonsense gun laws because he needs to protect the seats of Democrats who have to get re-elected in districts where voters know something about guns.
Even the stupidest politician has to know how utterly meaningless “assault weapon” bans are. (In fairness, New York’s Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not know.) But Democrats need to gin up the most easily fooled voters.
“Assault weapons” are defined as “whatever politicians say they are.” The guns that are banned and the ones that aren’t are functionally identical. They’re all semi-automatics.
RELATED: Debunker tackles assault weapons ban bunk
Semi-automatics shoot one bullet per trigger pull — that’s the definition. Any handgun manufactured since the Civil War is a “semi-automatic.” The most basic self-defense revolver for women is a “semi-automatic.”
An example of a gun that is not a semi-automatic is a musket. Also those guns where a “BANG!” flag pops out when the clown pulls the trigger.
An automatic firearm — what militaries and drug cartels have — continuously fires when the trigger is pulled. They have been subject to a near-total federal ban in this country since the 1930s, so they’re irrelevant to the discussion.
The only differences in the semi-automatics the Democrats want to ban and the ones they don’t are purely cosmetic details, such as bayonet mounts or pistol grips.
When is the last time anyone was killed with a bayonet in this country? Bayonets were rarely used even during the Civil War. Obama mocked the idea of bayonets during one of his debates with Romney. Now he’s terrified of them!
Semi-automatics with bayonets are some of the guns Democrats call “assault weapons.” It would be like defining 12-inch hunting knives with camouflage-colored handles — but not those with black handles — as “assault knives.” Assault weapons are the semi-automatics that look scary to soccer moms.
An example of the intentional obfuscation about semi-automatics (or “guns”) is the “Violence Policy Center” webpage, which states: “Semiautomatic assault weapons are civilian versions of automatic military assault rifles (like the AK-47 and the M-16) and automatic military assault pistols (like the UZI).”
This would be like saying: “Little girls’ pink bedrooms are civilian versions of military prisons (like Guantanamo) and terrorist rendition prisons (like CIA Black Sites).”
Yes, exactly alike, except the “prison” part.
Since not all Democrats get to run for office in New York, congressional Democrats can’t risk taking votes on such silly laws. Your guns will be safe, but your children won’t, because we’ll still have the mentally ill showing up at movie theaters, subway stations, shopping malls and schools.
If soccer moms want to worry about something, they should worry more about schizophrenics than guns.
RELATED: Gun owners rally against 2nd Amendment threats
In the late 1980s, New York City Mayor Ed Koch tried to institutionalize Joyce Brown, a mentally ill heroin addict living on the street who went by the name “Billie Boggs” (after local television host Bill Boggs). Brown was defecating on herself, removing all her clothes, burning money, running into traffic and shouting obscenities at passers-by. In other words, she was a prototype for Occupy Wall Street.
Brown’s family desperately wanted to have Brown committed to Bellevue Hospital. A Columbia psychiatrist argued for her institutionalization. The neighbors supported her commitment.
But the New York Civil Liberties Union wanted Brown back on the street. Her NYCLU attorney, Robert Levy, boasted that “Billie Boggs” was as sane as “a member of the board of the Civil Liberties Union.”
A New York judge, Robert Lippman, agreed –- but not the way I do. Instead of ordering the entire NYCLU board institutionalized, he ordered the release of this poor, mentally disturbed woman. She promptly spoke at Harvard. (Princeton already had Peter Singer.) Then she was back on the street, taking heroin and getting into fights with other homeless people.
Schizophrenics are generally incapable of knowing they need help. Without involuntary commitment, they are abandoned to the streets, getting beaten up, sexually abused, stolen from and set on fire. They also sometimes push people onto subway tracks, murder grandmothers, slaughter firemen and enter “gun-free zones” to commit mass murder.
But the Democrats won’t do anything about it. Even if you do not hear voices that tell you to kill strangers, liberals say: “Either we are all mad or none of us is mad.” Then they get mouthy about banning guns with bayonets. On which they will not vote. Montana’s Sen. Max Baucus has to get re-elected.

How democrats destroy America's schools

Rotten to the Core: Obama’s War on Academic Standards (Part 1)

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 23, 2013 09:43 AM
This year, I’ll be using my syndicated column and blog space to expose how progressive “reformers” — mal-formers — are corrupting our schools. One of my New Year’s resolutions is to provide you in-depth coverage of this vital issue that too often gets shunted off the daily political/partisan agenda. While the GOP tries to solve its ills with better software and communications consultants, the conservative movement — and America — face much larger problems. It doesn’t start with the “low-information voter.” It starts with the no-knowledge student. This is the first in an ongoing series on “Common Core,” the stealthy federal takeover of school curriculum and standards across the country. As longtime readers know, my own experience with this ongoing sabotage of academic excellence dates back to my early reporting on the Clinton-era “Goals 2000″ and “outcome-based” education and extends to my recent parental experience with “Everyday Math”.
The good news is that grass-roots education and parental groups, brave teachers, and professors are fighting back. See the resource list/links at the bottom of this column and stay tuned for much more.
Rotten to the Core: Obama’s War on Academic Standards (Part 1)
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012
America’s downfall doesn’t begin with the “low-information voter.” It starts with the no-knowledge student.
For decades, collectivist agitators in our schools have chipped away at academic excellence in the name of fairness, diversity and social justice. “Progressive” reformers denounced Western civilization requirements, the Founding Fathers and the Great Books as racist. They attacked traditional grammar classes as irrelevant in modern life. They deemed ability grouping of students (tracking) bad for self-esteem. They replaced time-tested rote techniques and standard algorithms with fuzzy math, inventive spelling and multicultural claptrap.
Under President Obama, these top-down mal-formers — empowered by Washington education bureaucrats and backed by misguided liberal philanthropists led by billionaire Bill Gates — are now presiding over a radical makeover of your children’s school curriculum. It’s being done in the name of federal “Common Core” standards that do anything but raise achievement standards.
Common Core was enabled by Obama’s federal stimulus law and hisDepartment of Education’s “Race to the Top” gimmickry. The administration bribed cash-starved states into adopting unseen instructional standards as a condition of winning billions of dollars in grants. Even states that lost their bids for Race to the Top money were required to commit to a dumbed-down and amorphous curricular “alignment.”
In practice, Common Core’s dubious “college- and career”-ready standards undermine local control of education, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials, and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America’s schoolchildren.
Over the next several weeks and months, I’ll use this column space to expose who’s behind this disastrous scheme in D.C. backrooms. I’ll tell you who’s fighting it in grassroots tea party and parental revolts across the country from Massachusetts to Indiana, Texas, Georgia and Utah. And most importantly, I’ll explain how this unprecedented federal meddling is corrupting our children’s classrooms and textbooks.
There’s no better illustration of Common Core’s duplicitous talk of higher standards than to start with its math “reforms.” While Common Core promoters assert their standards are “internationally benchmarked,” independent members of the expert panel in charge of validating the standards refute the claim. Panel member Dr. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas reported, “No material was ever provided to the Validation Committee or to the public on the specific college readiness expectations of other leading nations in mathematics” or other subjects.
In fact, Stanford University professor James Milgram, the only mathematician on the validation panel, concluded that the Common Core math scheme would place American students two years behind their peers in other high-achieving countries. In protest, Milgram refused to sign off on the standards. He’s not alone.
Professor Jonathan Goodman of New York University found that the Common Core math standards imposed “significantly lower expectations with respect to algebra and geometry than the published standards of other countries.”
Under Common Core, as the American Principles Project and Pioneer Institute point out, algebra I instruction is pushed to 9th grade, instead of 8th grade, as commonly taught. Division is postponed from 5th to 6th grade. Prime factorization, common denominators, conversions of fractions and decimals, and algebraic manipulation are de-emphasized or eschewed. Traditional Euclidean geometry is replaced with an experimental approach that had not been previously pilot-tested in the U.S.
Ze’ev Wurman, a prominent software architect, electrical engineer and longtime math advisory expert in California and Washington, D.C., points out that Common Core delays proficiency with addition and subtraction until 4th grade and proficiency with basic multiplication until 5th grade, and skimps on logarithms, mathematical induction, parametric equations and trigonometry at the high school level.
I cannot sum up the stakes any more clearly than Wurman did in his critique of this mess and the vested interests behind it:
“I believe the Common Core marks the cessation of educational standards improvement in the United States. No state has any reason left to aspire for first-rate standards, as all states will be judged by the same mediocre national benchmark enforced by the federal government. Moreover, there are organizations that have reasons to work for lower and less-demanding standards, specifically teachers unions and professional teacher organizations. While they may not admit it, they have a vested interest in lowering the accountability bar for their members. …This will be done in the name of ‘critical thinking’ and ’21st-century’ skills, and in faraway Washington, D.C., well beyond the reach of parents and most states and employers.”
This is all in keeping with my own experience as a parent of elementary- and middle-school age kids who were exposed to “Everyday Math” nonsense. This and other fads abandon “drill and kill” memorization techniques for fuzzy “critical thinking” methods that put the cart of “why” in front of the horse of “how.” In other words: Instead of doing the grunt work of hammering times tables and basic functions into kids’ heads first, the faddists have turned to wacky, wordy non-math alternatives to encourage “conceptual” understanding — without any mastery of the fundamentals of math.
Common Core is rotten to the core. The corruption of math education is just the beginning.
A starter list of resources/background/related links:
Truth in American Education is a blog devoted to watchdogging Common Core across the country.
The MA-based Pioneer Institute is the leading think tank tracking and fighting Common Core.
Pioneer’s Jim Stergios has an education blog, Rock the Schoolhouse, on
Hoosier Moms Say No to Common Core is Ground Zero for the parental revolt against Common Core in Indiana.
Utah moms against Common Core have a great blog.
Stanley Kurtz has written about Common Core at NRO here and here.
Mary Grabar has written about Common Core and Team Chicago’s leftieshere.
Phyllis Schlafly, as always, sounded the alarm here.
This must-read piece by James Shuls connects Common Core, math corruption, and the need for school choice.
APP’s full video series on Common Core here. Here’s part one to get you started.
Cato’s Neal McCluskey dissects the Common Core folly:
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: Education

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.


  1. #1
    On January 23rd, 2013 at 9:59 am, happyscrapper said:
    Michelle, I can’t begin to tell you how glad I am that you are focusing on this issue! This has been my biggest frustration as I have seen my 3 grandchildren go into the government school system. I fear for them and vow to check everything the school is planting in their innocent brains! Taking back our country MUST begin with our children! Thank you for honing in on this vital issue! I look forward to more articles from you and perhaps more information how I can personally get more involved in my own community.
  2. #2
    On January 23rd, 2013 at 10:08 am, Pasadena Phil said:
    “While the GOP tries to solve its ills with better software and communications consultants…”
    Much of which is being focused on finding a “final solution” for the “conservative problem”. How about getting out there and actuallymeeting real people! Grassroots support doesn’t come out of a computer.
  3. #3
    On January 23rd, 2013 at 10:13 am, happyscrapper said:
    I am especially unhappy with how the schools seem to keep very bright students back instead of putting them into more accelerated classes. My 8 year-old grandson is a math whiz, also reading at 6th grade level (he is in 3rd grade). He reads constantly and LOVES math! What potential! He is in an accelerated reading class, but is bored in math and isn’t learning much. Now I hear on F&F this a.m. that there is another push to eliminate the use of red pens for marking tests and papers. Apparenly, having a red check mark to highlight errors is hurting poor little Johnnie’s tender feelings! I thought that nonsense had already been settled! Now they trying again.
    Is there NO WAY to stop these morons? They just keep at it ad nauseum until people give in! Then the kids get to college and discover that…wow…they don’t know even the basics! So what happens next? Cheating. This is what we are relying on to run our country and our businesses…kids who sailed through school with their feelings carefully protected and who weren’t taught the basic tasks of deductive reasoning, debate, the true history of our country and why it is exceptional, oh, and HOW TO LOSE!
    The regressives are ruining our children and we have been allowing it! What is wrong with us? This crap must stop and stop NOW!

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Why cities will fail

Why collectivism is doomed and the next great crisis will massively shift America toward conservatism

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Mike Adams
Natural News
Jan 20, 2013
There is a very good reason why people who live in cities tend to be liberal while those who live in rural areas tend to be conservative. In a city, the existence of nearby neighbors, the shared dependence on infrastructure and the close proximity of police stations automatically lends itself to a socialist mindset. On issues like guns, city people seem to be unable to imagine why anyone would “need” a rifle, for example, and because all guns scare them, they would prefer to force everyone across the country to turn them all in.
People who live in rural areas, in great contrast, have every reason to be more conservative and independent. Their local sheriff might be 30 minutes away in an emergency, meaning that self protection is truly up to you and can’t simply be delegated to someone else. Self-reliance means survival. In rural living, firearms are absolutely necessary tools to protect your animals from predators, eliminate varmints that are destroying your garden, and provide real security for legitimate threats to your safety. People who live in cities tend not to be able to understand these things because they can’t imagine country life.
Because cities pack so many people in such a small space, there is a commonsense basis for lots of little laws and regulations on things like noise, littering and even your car’s emissions. After all, one incredibly noisy person living in an apartment can prevent a hundred people from getting to sleep, so noise ordinances make sense where people live in close proximity.
Out in the country, where the nearest house might be a quarter-mile away, noise ordinances make no sense. Regulations on every little detail of the lives of the people simply don’t fly.
FACT: Today, about 80% of the U.S. population lives in cities.
The political divide in America today is largely a division of “city folks” versus “country folks”
City people tend to be socialist-minded. Their motto is: Conform! Obey! Be part of the collective!
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Country people tend to be libertarian-minded. Their motto is: Survive! Work hard! Stand out as an individual!
City people are afraid of non-conformity. They’re afraid of tractors, guns, farm animals and anything else they don’t understand.
Country people are afraid of being told what to do by a bunch of city people who have no clue where their food comes from, where water comes from, what “growing seasons” are, or how to survive in the real world.
City people tend to believe in “living off the government” and collective welfare and other entitlements wherever possible.
Country people tend to believe in “living off the land” and finding ways to survive on their own or with the help of family. They feel a sense of personal shame if driven to use food stamps or other forms of welfare.
City people tend to vote democratic because democrats reflect the lean toward socialism and everything socialism brings them: welfare, subsidized housing, conformity, obedience, etc.
Country people tend to vote Republican because Republicans reflect more of a rugged individualism mindset that encourages business ownership, financial savings and living a more free life with fewer regulations and government controls.
If you look at every voting map of America over the last few years, you’ll find that rural areas overwhelmingly voted Republican while urban areas overwhelmingly voted Democrat. The following map shows the congressional district results from the 2010 election:

Modern-day cities are artificial constructs ripe for collapse
Cities are artificial constructs. They are not the “real world.” Cities only exist because a massive amount of energy is expended to import water, food, electricity, consumer goods, fuel and other items to the people living there.
Cities offer tremendous advantages to residents, of course, including convenience, efficiencies of commerce, shared defenses against the wilderness, specialization of the workforce, a critical mass of population needed to offer universities, and so on. People live in cities precisely because cities seem to offer them more advantages than living in the country. For most people, this comes down to a single answer: JOBS.
Most people can’t find work in the country, so they live in cities in order to get a job. Unfortunately, living in the city is far more expensive than living in the country, so much of their paycheck goes to paying the rent on their expensive city apartment, parking permits, higher food costs and so on.
Ultimately, however, cities are death traps. Let’s look at Los Angeles as the perfect example of why this is the case.
Example: Why Los Angeles is a death trap
• LA has no inherent water supply. Virtually all the water used throughout the region must be imported and pumped over a mountain range at great cost. This pumping of water is entirely dependent on the power grid remaining functional.
• LA is incapable of being evacuated. The population density of the city is mathematically far too great to be evacuated via the limited number of roadways exiting the city.
• LA has multiple points of systemic failure. If the power grid goes down, LA is finished. If the water supply stops pumping, LA is finished. If farmers go on strike and stop producing food for the cities, LA is finished. If the police stand down or quit, LA is finished. If gasoline and fuel supplies are cut off, LA is finished. If the sewer and sanitation systems fail, LA is finished.
• LA has a scary population density of about 7,000 people per square mile. That’s the highest of any city in the USA. This population density results in almost immediate panic and violence in any collapse scenario. Humans are not biologically designed to live in such high density environments.
• LA is infested with gangs that are barely kept under control right now. Those gangs would love nothing better than the see law enforcement go on strike or a power grid failure or some other kind of systemic collapse. That would give them the opportunity to go on the offensive and start looting, pillaging and murdering.
There are more reasons why LA is a death trap, but these five should paint the picture clearly enough. And it’s not just LA, of course. Here are the top 20 death traps in America today…
The top 20 death traps in America
Source: 2010 census
1) New York City
2) Los Angeles
3) Chicago
4) Miami
5) Philadelphia
6) Dallas-Fort Worth
7) Houston
8) Washington D.C.
9) Atlanta
10) Boston
11) Detroit
12) Phoenix
13) San Francisco
14) Seattle
15) San Diego
16) Minneapolis
17) Tampa
18) Denver
19) Baltimore
20) St. Louis
While all of these cities are death traps, each has its own unique risks and vulnerabilities. Phoenix, for example, is especially susceptible to disruptions in the water supply. New York City is geographically cut off from the mainland and can easily be crippled by the destruction of its bridges. Houston and Miami are susceptible to hurricanes. Denver is heavily targeted by Russian nukes, and so on.
The more dense cities become, the more insane their leadership becomes
One thing you’ll notice about this list is that the mayors and city council members of these cities tend to be some of the most outrageously insane people walking the planet today.
Why is that? Those who have a kind of mental sickness that causes them to seek control over others naturally flock to the highest population density areas where they can attempt to control as many people as possible. This is one reason why cities become home to control freaks who seek total domination over the private lives of everyone else.
New York City mayor Bloomberg, for example, wants to control the sizes of sodas you can buy, whether or not you get painkillers in the hospital emergency room and even how much rent landlords can charge tenants. If he could get away with it, he would probably also like to control how many square sheets of toilet paper you wipe with and how many times you chew each bite of food before swallowing. Control freaks love cities because that’s where people can more easily be dominated. Citizens of cities tend to be more obedient and conformist than people living in rural areas. Plus, city folks are generally not as well armed, making them easy to dominate by force, if necessary.
“Any government that does not trust its citizens with firearms is either a tyranny, or planning to become one.” – Joseph P. Martino, author of Resistance to Tyranny.
Community leaders of rural areas tend to be less insane and more practical than city leaders. That’s because people know each other better, so there’s more trust and reputation familiarity in small towns than in large cities. Plus, leaders of small towns know that if they try to become tyrants, some local rancher will just put a bullet in their head with a long-range hunting rifle. It’s that kind of awareness that helps keep community leaders honest and accountable.
Why the coming collapse will shift America away from liberalism and toward conservatism
Here’s the real point of this entire article. I wanted to start with this but needed everything above to provide the appropriate background and context.
Pick your crisis, any crisis: Global debt collapse, solar flare followed by power grid failure, EMP weapon strike by North Korea causing power grid failure, biological weapons attack, martial law declaration followed by civil war, etc. In any sufficiently large scenario, the cities become death traps.
• A sustained power grid failure (lasting several months) would likely result in something approaching an 80% fatality rate for those living in cities.
• A biological weapon release could easily cause a 30% fatality rate for those in the cities.
• An economic collapse (bank failures, etc.) could also see mass casualties across U.S. cities due to starvation, disease, outbreaks of violence and so on.
Aside from the devastating human cost of such scenarios, which I won’t really focus on because that’s not the point of this article, the net effect of any mass die-off would be a shifting of the population toward individualism, conservatism and country living.
A mass die-off of people living in cities, in other words, is essentially a mass die-off of Obama voters (or more liberal-minded, socialist-minded people). This is one reason why rugged individuals, survivalists, preppers and rural people are ultimately going to be in the majority: because crisis comes to civilization with surprising regularity. Every crisis resulting in a mass die-off inevitably kills those who are less able to survive because they are living as parasites on a system that will ultimately fail them. The true long-term survivors are those who live and breathe independence, self-reliance and personal defense.
To put all this another way, collectivists don’t survive very long in a real crisis. Because they live their lives dependent on the system, they have lost the skills — and the spirit — to survive on their own.
The cycles of civilization
As populations tend to become more lazy, apathetic and dependent over time (enjoying the spoils of abundance and innovation their ancestors put in place), populations tend to slide toward collectivism as long as conditions allow. Click here to see my related video called the Cycle of Civilization.
This brings us to the following conclusion:
As population rises, nations tend to slide toward collectivism / socialism until there is a die-off crisis, at which point those remaining will largely be proponents of conservatism and libertarianism.
This is one of the reasons why civilizations tend to go through predictable cycles: After abundance and innovation comes apathy and collectivism. Then corruption, exploitation, a stripping of liberties and so on. This is then followed by revolution and a new era of freedom which creates abundance and innovation. Then the cycle repeats.
Today, America is in the downward stroke of the collectivism cycle, with the government having already crossed the threshold into criminal corruption, and now the effort to strip all rights from the people is well under way. History shows us that this will be followed by a dark period of intense violations of human rights, then a revolution and a new era of freedom.
But this cycle can be interrupted at any time with a sufficiently large crisis that causes a mass die-off. This is because die-offs are not equally applied across the population. It is the collectivist-minded societal parasite who is far more likely to die in any crisis than a productive, individual-minded taxpayer who currently supports the system.
The silver lining for the future of human civilization
In one sense, this is the silver lining that emerges from any potential crisis. While massive loss of life is always tragic, it may be precisely the thing that jolts a civilization out of its downward spiral of collectivism and restarts the engine of individualism and innovation that results in real progress.
Put another way, it is difficult to imagine the United States of America, as it exists today, achieving anything really profound in the sciences, space exploration, physics or human understanding because the nation is presently caught in a suffocating debt spiral consumed by paying out entitlements to a growing class of parasitic takers who contribute nothing meaningful to humankind. We have become, in part, a nation of mindless consumers whose lives really make no different whatsoever to the advancement of humanity. Should a crisis emerge that results in a massive die-off of the parasitic “takers,” although the tragic loss of life would be immense, it would also have the effect of vastly reducing the masses who are holding back civilization from real progress in human understanding and achievement. For the record, in no way does this mean I wish for such an outcome nor endorse any such outcome. I have long been a defender of life, and I have no desire to see anyone suffer or die. I am merely discussing cause and effect and how demographics shift due to large-scale crisis.
I have heard this crudely (and incorrectly) paraphrased with the statement that, “What America really needs right now is a massive die-off to purge all the useless eaters.” That’s not what I’m saying, and it smacks of a desire to engage in genocide.
Instead, what I’m saying is that cities tend to breed a “failure” mindset that infects the population and turns otherwise productive and rugged people into pathetic, spineless, obedient cowards. This explains why nobody fought back during the Aurora, Colorado shooting carried out by James Holmes. It explains why people call 911 after an intruder has already smashed down their front door, screaming into the phone, “SHOULD I SHOOT THEM?” (And it also explains why 911 operators reply with, “No! Don’t shoot!”) It explains why city people tend to go along with tyranny and oppression.
It explains why humanity is stalled in a cycle of pathetic conformity, raising a generation of over-Google-fied morons who have lost all imagination and are but a shadow of their ancestors. The convenience of city life has, with some exceptions of course, produced apathy, timidity and acquiescence. The real values of progress — innovation, invention, determination and self-reliance — are now far more prevalent in rural-minded citizens who are strong, rugged survivors and explorers. (You want to see the future of humanity? Home-schooled children.)
That’s the kind of mindset that’s going to help human civilization reach for the stars. It’s going to take courage, innovation and risk — all the things that a “city mindset” sucks out of our souls and diminishes in our minds.
Cities are the last refuge of the weak-willed, weak-minded and conformist socialbots. And that’s why they will suffer a disproportionate number of fatalities in any sufficiently severe collapse.
You want to survive? Learn country living
If you are a rural-minded person still living in a city, and you can’t wait to get out of the city, the time to act on it is now. Get out to the country, learn some real-world living skills, toughen your will and sharpen your mind.
You will learn more in ONE YEAR of living on a working farm then you did in four years of college. The best education I ever got was living on a ranch in central Texas. It turned me into a hard-core survivor and problem solver who can overcome almost anything the universe might throw our way.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

I have a dream...

When Martin L. King made that statement, he realized that after thousands of years, on every continent, in every country, in the minds of all non-black humans, Negroes had proven beyond all doubt, and reinforced the fact a thousand times, that blacks were a lazy,. uneducated, thieving, race, for which there was no use except for target practice. 

Of course, if a black person learned English, took a bath, and got a job, every freedom and liberty was available to any person, regardless of color.  But that would take effort.  Something NO black person wants to expend.  So they just decided to behave like primitive thugs until "Whitey" would give them free stuff to shut them up and get them out of the way.

Nothing has changed.  

Why not make blacks work for what they get, just like everyone else?  


Thursday, January 17, 2013

Please help make this go viral

Every person that does not agree with this 100% is a traitor and should be killed as soon as possible for treason!

Man Who Understands Gun Control

Man Who Understands Gun Control
Here is a Letter to the Editor from a man who understands the real agenda behind gun control:

To the Editor:

This letter was forwarded to Barack Obama, John Boehner, Chris Murphy, Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth Esty, and Harry Reid

I live in Sandy Hook, CT. My family and close friends weren't harmed on December 14. That day impacted 26 families with an indescribable, staggering pain and anguish. For most of Sandy Hook, it merely affected us with an inescapable intensity of sadness and grief.

Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though I'm not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers' circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King George's successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, it's as threatening as ever.

That so many of you view the NRA with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRA's actions.

You in public office are fundamentally dishonest people. You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening. When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we can't afford and you've never read. You claim it's critical because health care costs are killing this country... no they're not, you are! You are killing this country. You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded. You can't lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn. You fabricate the intense, media laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know you'll be out of office before the bill comes due… you don't care and have no integrity nor honor.

You lie whenever and wherever you need to to move forth your agenda. Were you able, you would purge the US of guns… every last gun in the country, if you could. So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who don't trust you as far as we can spit. You're a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview. If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.

I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. You'll stop restricting guns when only you have them.

Brendan Duffy

4 Chestnut Knoll Drive,
Sandy Hook
January 8, 2013

Monday, January 7, 2013

When they come for your guns, will you fight?

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

solgunsI feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.
About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.
If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.
Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.
Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.
I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.
Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
supremeThis is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.
For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington
The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams
founderspicI could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.
We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.
A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much  in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.
soulonfireIt is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.
Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.
I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.
Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.
I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.
If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.
This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.
I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.
What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?
I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.
thinkingYou must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.
I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.
For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.
Are you willing to die to take my guns?

IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. This free wordpress blog has just gone from averaging 300 visitors per day 40,000-50,000 hits per day and I have no idea when things may return to normal. That was caused by the people that cared and not the author. I am just an average American that cares. Every Facebook share, retweet, and email is helping and please continue to support what you believe in. We make no money from this blog. We may someday, but for now it is our choice to offer the truth as we see it for the good of our country and not for anything material. Keep on sharing and let’s make them pay attention to us! No sane American really wants a Civil War. We want peace but we will not back down from a government that chooses to ignore our founding principles. I am forever in your debt and service. -Dean Garrison