There’s a reason why so many MENA countries have such poor human rights records, and it isn’t colonialism, racism from white people, cosmic radiation, voodoo curses, or any of the other countless bullshit excuses that are trotted out to explain their problems. A country is a reflection of the people who live there, and when those people are a bunch of 85-90 IQ sexual deviants, with a worldview that was archaic a millennium ago, then it can hardly be surprising that some messed up behaviours become commonplace in that country as a result. Ordinarily, we’re told to believe that geographical location is the sole determinant of this behaviour, and that if we move large masses of people from a geographical location where a certain behaviour is practiced, to somewhere where it isn’t, and don’t force them to integrate with the population of their new location (that would be racist), that somehow, they’ll just give up the old behaviour by pure magic, to behave more like the population of the host society. This of course is complete nonsense, and I don’t understand how anyone can still buy it. Because we can no longer pretend that they will change their barbaric behaviour on arrival, a new suggestion has been put forward. Compromise.
WESTERN STATES SHOULD legally permit immigrant communities to surgically “nick” young girls’ vaginas as an alternative to genital mutilation.
I wonder what kind of stupid argument these idiots are going to put forward in favour of this bright idea.
That was the argument put forward by a pair of US gynecologists in a hotly-challenged paper this week.
The two doctors stated in the Journal of Medical Ethics that such a “compromise” could allow groups to honour cultural or religious prescripts while saving millions of girls from invasive and disfiguring genital slashing practised in some African and Middle Eastern cultures.
In what world does this sound like a logical and sensible argument? The idea of actually “compromising” on such a barbaric practice is completely insane. What other “compromises” should western societies make with these backwards cultures in order to make them feel welcome?
“Hey lads, I know that throwing gay people off of buildings to their deaths is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just beat them to a bloody pulp with baseballs bats instead.”
“Hey lads, I know that stoning adulterers to death is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just stone them until they end up in a coma instead.”
“Hey lads, I know you like gang raping unaccompanied women who aren’t covered from head to toe. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can only rape them on an individual basis, instead of in a gang.”
Seriously, how fucking ludicrous is this suggestion of compromise?
Kavita Arora of the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and Allan Jacobs of Stony Brook University in New York state, said:
We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable.
Then why are you offering a compromise rather than resisting it outright?
“Rather, we only argue that certain procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies”, which have outlawed such practices but host immigrants for whom it is part of their culture.
If its outlawed, then it should be forbidden to everyone. If they want to practice their culture, you know where they can do that? In the countries they came from. When they’re in another country, they should abide by the cultural norms of that country. If an element of their culture is incompatible with the culture of their host society, they have two choices. Leave, or stop practicing that part of their culture. It’s really that simple.
Efforts to enforce an outright ban on female genital mutilation (FGM) have often had the opposite effect – driving the practice underground and putting women at even greater risk, said the duo.
Strange how native European men aren’t filled with the same desire to resist this ban so they can mutilate female genitals. If I didn’t know better, I’d think there are vast differences between us, and the African/Middle Eastern men that we’re flooding our countries with. But that couldn’t possibly be true, because we’re all exactly the same and equal. Only brainless, hate filled, racists, would think otherwise.
But many peers immediately dismissed the idea.
There is still some sanity in this world after all.
According to Arianne Shahvisi of the University of Sussex ethics department in Britain:”One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent.”
I agree. I think we should also outlaw infant male circumcision too while we’re at it. I believe that males have the right to body integrity too. Maybe circumcised boys might end up wishing they still had their foreskins when they get older, and they should have the right to not have the decision made for them. Of course, I know such a ban would piss off the Jews to no end, so it will probably never happen. Would be funny to see them whining about it though.
Arora and Jacobs, however, contended that a one-size-fits-all approach ignored that many people believed the procedure to be a means of achieving “moral or ritual purity” for their child.
Vaginal cutting is widely regarded as a libido-reducer, intended in certain cultures to keep a woman chaste.
“We’re a first world country in the 21st century. We let women make their own choices and claim to value gender equality. But we better keep those Muslims girls chaste.”
According to the World Health Organisation, about three million girls a year fall victim to genital mutilation.
It can cause urinary difficulties, cysts and infection, infertility and complications in childbirth.
But we can’t ban it outright. We need to reach a compromise instead.
Like dental work
Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.
Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.
Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).
The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.
“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.
Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.
Unclear is whether this type of procedure would be considered valid by communities who perform FGM.
Categories Three to Five should remain outlawed, said the pair.
These included procedures to remove the clitoris or other parts of the vagina, often to be stitched closed with only a small hole for urine, menstrual blood and intercourse.
And what if they “accidentally” botch a category one procedure and end up giving a category 3 or higher? Is that considered an acceptable risk? Similar things have happened with male circumcisions, so what’s to say it couldn’t happen here too?
Brian Earp of the Bioethics Research Institute in New York said Arora and Jacobs erred in using male circumcision as a benchmark for what is permissible.
“Ultimately, I suggest that children of whatever sex or gender should be free from having healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs either damaged or removed, before they can understand what is at stake in such an intervention and agree to it themselves,” he wrote in a commentary.
I completely agree. It’s their body, so they should get to choose what happens to it.
Earlier this month, the United Nations said at least 200 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to FGM – some 44 million aged 14 and younger.
In the 30 countries where the practice is most widespread, the majority were cut before their fifth birthday, according to the UN.
Such vibrancy. Such diversity. So colourful and exciting. We need more of this to enrich our boring countries.
I’ve occasionally heard people I know (white people specifically) talking about how entertaining Buzzfeed is. I can only assume that these people must be filled with hatred for the colour of their own skin, or they are at least brainwashed enough with white guilt that they’re unable to see Buzzfeed for what it really is. Buzzfeed is probably the most anti-white mainstream site in existence. No joke, I’m convinced that the entire site is nothing more than a propaganda machine to instill guilt and self-loathing in young white people, and at the same time, stir up feelings of hatred and resentment among non-whites against whites. Just look at the headlines from the screenshots I’ve taken from the site.
We get it Buzzfeed. You have a problem with white people. The comments sections on their articles are usually full of two kinds of people. Bitter, twisted, non-whites (mainly black or mixed race), who seem to take delight in bitching about how terrible whitey is, and how they wish white people didn’t exist.
Funny how they hate white people, yet willingly choose to settle in predominantly white countries. You would almost suspect that the white countries they settle in are objectively superior to the failed third-world hellholes that they or the parents crawled out of.
But of course as we all know, according to our politically correct masters, this couldn’t be true. It’s just a coincidence that every single white country on the planet has first world status, and every single black country (for example) is a joke in terms of living standards. The fact that even formerly white run countries like Haiti, Zimbabwe, and South Africa (and cities in white countries like Detroit), have actually seen their living standards drop since the white people lost control of them means absolutely nothing. It’s obviously just a coincidence each and every time, and white people don’t actually create superior living standards, they just get lucky.
The other group that frequents the comments section of their articles are weak willed, self-loathing, white wusses, who seem to want nothing more than to see their own race go extinct, so that they can be freed from their own stupid feelings of guilt for being born with white skin. These people tend to be most laughable and pathetic figures you can imagine. Failures at life in every way conceivable.
These people are the worst of the two groups. I don’t necessarily blame the non-whites who comment on the articles, because they’re just doing what they feel is right for their own ethnic interests. But these white cuckolds who join in too are absolutely pathetic. I have absolutely no problem with standing up against racism, or treating other racial groups with respect. But whining about how much you hate your own race and wanting to see your own demographic destruction is one of the most pathetic things imaginable. If they truly wanted to live in a society that values equality, then they should be standing up for themselves as well as for others. But for some reason, these people are such pathetic weaklings, that they don’t have the courage to go against the grain and say “hang on a second, this isn’t fair to my race”.
Anyway, Buzzfeed doesn’t just make stupid list articles about how much they hate white people. They make videos too. Recently they made yet another one for the sole purpose of instilling white guilt. Lets take a look at it.
I actually think it’s incredible how these other races aren’t offended by how they’re portrayed in videos like this. It essentially shows them as nothing more than a bunch of crybabies who are incapable of succeeding in life because big bad whitey keeps being mean to them for absolutely no reason. It’s actually laughable how pathetic it is.
Thankfully enough, the viewers aren’t impressed, as can be seen by the like/dislike ratio and the comments. People are obviously starting to wise up to Buzzfeed.
You would probably wonder, just what kind of a person would run such an organisation like Buzzfeed? So after looking at their Wikipedia article, I found that their founder and CEO is a guy by the name of Jonah Peretti.
Peretti’s father is Italian-American and his mother is Jewish
Nobody could have ever predicted that these helpless “widows and children”, fleeing for their lives from the Syrian civil war in Turkey, would ever be motivated to gang-rape women in their host nations. Everybody just assumed that once they reached Japan (the first safe country they could reach after fleeing the war in Turkey), that they’d magically give up their old behaviour patterns and become exactly like the indigenous Japanese people. It’s not as if there is any precedent of countless Muslim “refugees” sexually assaulting women in their host nations, that people could have read about beforehand.
No, absolutely no way of knowing something like this could happen.
TOKYO (TR) – Tokyo Metropolitan Police have arrested two Turkish nationals currently applying for refugee status for allegedly raping a woman in Kita Ward, reports the Sankei Shimbun(Feb. 22).
Let me point out that Japan isn’t as soft as Europe when it comes to taking in asylum seekers. They reject the vast majority of them. According to this article, they only accepted 11 out of 5000 applicants in 2014, and according to this one, just 27 in 2015. So they have only a tiny fraction of what European countries are getting and somehow they still ended up taking in rapists. This is complete insanity. If it’s truly just a small minority that are sexual predators (like SJWs would have us believe), then what are the odds of something like this happening? It’s just incredible really.
At approximately 12:30 a.m. on December 27 of last year, Onder Pinarbasi, 22, and a 16-year-old boy allegedly took the woman, aged in her 30s, to a public toilet near JR Akabane Station and sexually assaulted her. The suspects also stole 9,000 yen in cash from the victim.
Pinarbasi, who has been charged with rape and robbery, claims the boy committed both crimes. The boy admits to onlyl the robbery charge. “I did not force myself upon her,” he is quoted by police in denying the rape accusation, according to the Yomiuri Shimbun (Feb. 22).
No of course you didn’t. She wanted it, didn’t she? She wasn’t wearing her burka, so she was clearly just a whore out looking for a good time. That’s how it was, right?
The incident occurred after the suspects called out the woman, who was visibly drunk at the time, as she was walking home.
Oh well definitely a whore then. If she was drinking she must have wanted it then. She couldn’t possibly have just been out drinking for other reasons No, she was obviously just getting herself in the mood for your dick.
The suspects arrived in Japan last year. They applied for refugee status in August and October, telling the Immigration Bureau of Japan that they did not want to return to Turkey due to “problems that exist between relatives.”
Can you even begin to imagine the fear they must have felt back home? They have problems… with relatives. Oh the humanity.
While their applications were being examined, the suspects received a visa status granting “special permission to stay in Japan.”
The suspects became people of interest for the police after an examination of surveillance camera footage taken in the area.
Let this story serve as an example as to what we’re facing. It literally doesn’t matter where they go. It is simply their nature to sexually assault women. The more of these people a country takes in, the more problems that country is going to have. It is simply an objective reality.
Anyone who has been paying close attention to the war in Syria is probably well aware of the fact that ever since Russia has stepped in, the tide has really turned against ISIS and their allies. This hasn’t gone down too well with Turkey who, despite being officially opposed to ISIS, have in actuality beentrainingISISfighters, and buying cheapoil from them, and therefore don’t particularly like the idea of their allies getting killed by Russia.
So, Turkey have been throwing temper tantrums and has been trying to provoke Russia ever since. There have been various incidents back and forward between the two, and there’s no need to go into all of them. Lets just say that the whole thing is really ridiculous and proves that Erdogan is either a complete idiot, or the kind of person who wouldn’t look out of place playing a James Bond villain. The stupidest thing they did by far, was shooting down a Russian plane.
Naturally enough, there’s a fear that all of this stuff could escalate to a point where there’s a war between the two countries. This probably wouldn’t have bothered Turkey too much if they could count on their NATO allies to back them up. Too bad for them, they can’t.
European diplomats have warned the Turkish government that it cannot count on the NATO support should the conflict with Russia escalate into an armed conflict, according to German media.
Don’t worry though Turkey. You can probably still count on those nice lads in Saudi Arabia to help.
Ankara has called for a joint ground operation in Syria with its international allies, insisting it is the only way to stop the country’s five-year war. Saudi Arabia has said it would be ready to take part in an international force to be deployed in Syria.
Funny how they only want to get involved in the war when ISIS is on the retreat. And it’s also funny that they seem more concerned about Russia than they do about ISIS. You’d almost suspect that they’re getting involved because they want to help ISIS win, rather than help stop them.
But Russia, which has been carrying out air strikes in support of main regional ally Bashar al-Assad, has voiced its opposition to the operation. It also called on the Security Council to press Turkey to halt its shelling of Kurdish forces in northern Syria – but it was rejected.
Turkey’s plan was based on the assumption that, in case of conflict, the country could invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, the collective defence clause if any member state is attacked.
But Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn told German magazine Der Spiegel that the Turkish government cannot count on Nato
‘NATO cannot allow itself to be pulled into a military escalation with Russia as a result of the recent tensions between Russia and Turkey,’ he said.
That’s what you get for stirring shit up. What are you going to do now Turkey? I would suggest getting down on your hands and knees and begging Putin for mercy.
Asselborn also stressed that Article 5 can only be invoked when a member state is clearly attacked.
And Turkey is clearly the aggressor here so it wouldn’t apply in this case. Russia was asked by the Assad government, the legal government of Syria, for assistance in the war. Therefore, they are there legally and have the right to do what they are doing. Turkey, much like the United States and Saudi Arabia, weren’t invited, and therefore have no legal right to get involved.
A German diplomat echoed Asselborn’s stance and said:
‘We are not going to pay the price for a war started by the Turks.’
On Friday, French President Francois Hollande also said that Europe needs to prevent a conflict between the two nations.
‘There is a risk of war between Turkey and Russia,’ he said in an interview with France Inter radio.
And if it does happen, then I think the sensible thing to do, would be to leave them alone, and let nature take its course.
So this is going to be a very long one folks, but I really think I need to get this one out there.
I find that whenever I tell people that I think Trump is the best of the US Presidential hopefuls, that I always, always, get a negative reaction. There’s literally only one person that I’ve spoken to so far who shares my view (if you’re reading this, you know who you are). So, I think the time has come for me to clarify just why exactly I’ve come to these conclusions.
I’ll start off by responding to the main arguments I’ve heard used against him. The first is that he’s a racist, and there are two incidents in particular that are cited to back up this claim. His comments about Mexicans, and his comments about Muslims. I’ll deal with the Mexicans first.
Racism towards Mexicans
The biased media has claimed that Trump generalised the Mexican people (including American citizens of Mexican heritage) as criminals, specifically rapists and drug dealers. In reality, he made no such generalisation. He never suggested that all Mexicans were criminals. He never said that all immigrants coming from Mexico are criminals. He never even said that all illegal immigrants are criminals (even though I guess technically speaking, it is a crime, albeit a non-violent one by definition to immigrate illegally). No, lets listen to what he actually said. (Skip to 1:40)
So as can be seen above, he didn’t generalise all Mexicans as criminals He simply stated that there are problems with many of the ones who are coming to America. And he’s not technically wrong in what he’s saying. Here are links to several articles from before he made those comments, concerning criminal acts committed by illegal Mexican immigrants.
So these are actual specific events that back up his claims. As already pointed out, he never said that all Mexicans are doing this. Nor did he say that he wanted to get rid of all Mexican people from America. He just said that there is a problem with illegal immigrants from Mexico committing these types of crimes, and as can be seen here, there are numerous incidents that confirm this. If something is true, then why can’t it be pointed out? Surely, protecting American citizens from potential rapists, murderers, and drug gangs, is more important than trying not to offend people. So what exactly is the problem with trying to protect their southern border and controlling who comes in to the country? There’s absolutely nothing unreasonable about a sovereign nation protecting its borders and choosing who it lets through.
You may have noticed as well, that every single article is from some variation of NBC. This is because NBC made a point of cancelling a deal with Trump to host the Miss Universe pageant in protest over his comments about Mexican immigrants. Showing that NBC themselves have posted numerous articles in the past that back up exactly what he said just shows how ridiculous the whole situation is. Political correctness dictates that facts don’t really matter. Only emotions do. They literally pulled out of a deal because he said offensive things that they themselves know is true.
Racism towards Muslims
So now that that is out of the way. lets move on to his comments about Muslims. First of all, I think it’s stupid that people actually try to to say that he was racist at all in this case, because Islam is not a race. However, lets just pretend it is, and we’ll look at why I think his comments about Muslims were also perfectly reasonable.
It’s important to note that Trump made his controversial comments about Muslims in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks (and long before what happened in Cologne and other European cities on New Year’s Eve). This is what he said first of all.
He called for a complete ban on Muslims entering America until America’s representatives could figure out what is going on (specifically, what sort of people are coming in from the Islamic world, and why so many of them harbour ill intent towards Americans). People have suggested that a ban such as this is unconstitutional. This is a complete lie. The American constitution is for the benefit of the American people specifically. It doesn’t apply to the rest of the world, as can be seen here, here, here, and here. The specific law that allows it states:
“Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any c“lass of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
In fact, it’s nothing unusual for US Presidents to restrict immigration to groups which may be a threat to the country. During the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, Jimmy Carter stripped Iranians of Visas, and stopped issuing new visas to Iranian people altogether, temporarily. Even before this law existed, it wasn’t unusual for similar things to happen. During WW2, Italians, Germans, and most famously, Japanese people, were rounded up and held in internment camps, because it was feared that these people may have an allegiance to their countries of origin, and thus be a threat to the American war effort. Regardless of the morality behind it, it was done because they felt it was the right thing to do to protect their own people, which is a country’s primary responsibility.
Not all Iranians were a threat to America during the Iranian hostage crisis, and not all Germans, Italians, or Japanese were a threat during WW2. However, a significant minority may well have been, and ultimately, the US has a duty of care to its own citizens, first and foremost. Rather than taking what they considered to be unnecessary chances, they took steps that they felt would ensure their own security.
By the same token, not all 1.6 Billion Muslims worldwide are a threat to America. I would agree that the majority aren’t. However it is simply a fact that America is currently at war with radical Islam, which a minority it may be, still makes up tens or possibly even hundreds of millions of individuals out of those 1.6 Billion. This can be seen from data in numerous polls that have been conducted on a diverse range of Muslims worldwide. There’s no way of knowing for certain which Muslims are extremists until they act. Therefore, is it really unreasonable to put the safety and wellbeing of your own citizens ahead of accommodating an alien group who you have no legal or moral obligation to, whose way of life is radically different from your own, and who share a variation of an ideology with people who want to destroy your own way of life and murder your own people?
And to be blunt, I stand by what I say about there being no moral obligation to let them in to the country. America is a country that was built on immigration. I’m not denying that. But, it was a country built on immigration from European countries specifically. European countries which despite their superficial differences, are still historically, culturally, religiously, and racially similar enough that they were able to integrate together peacefully. So for most of its history, including the early years when it was first getting built up, the vast majority of Americans were 1: White, and 2: Christians. These were the people who made America the most prosperous and powerful country on the planet, and it is their children, and their children’s children who deserved to inherit that prosperity as their birthright.
It wasn’t until the 1965 immigration act (after about 190 years of America favouring immigration from European countries) that borders were opened up to Asia, Africa, The Middle East, and South America. Proponents insisted that it wouldn’t change the demographics of the country. Of course, as we can see now, this was a complete lie. The once stable white majority of roughly 90% (who were Christian either religiously, or at least culturally so) has been reducing year on year ever since, as demographics shift in favour of non-whites (whose cultural and religious background is often quite different).
Just to put that in a smaller context, imagine your parents worked hard all their life, and managed to purchase a nice home, with lots of nice home comforts, and a decent chunk of savings in the bank. Now imagine instead of you inheriting that wealth when they passed away, you were told you had to share it with your neighbours, whose parents were unemployed drug addicts, with no wealth at the time of their death. If you didn’t want to share it, and instead wanted it for yourself and your own children, you’re an evil monster. That is essentially what is happening on a larger scale.
The white Americans are the descendants of the people who created this great prosperity, but instead of being allowed to inherit it and later pass it on to their own children, they’re told they don’t deserve it and have to share it with people from all over the world, who had nothing to do with creating it. And then they’re constantly told by the media and the educational system about how privileged they are for being born white, and how wonderful it is that as a demographic, they’re declining. Being born with white skin is like the modern day version of Original Sin. Can you really blame them for feeling pissed off?
As a white guy myself, I have absolutely no problem with people of other races. However even so, I do believe that we, like all others, have our own specific racial and ethnic interests, which we are within our rights to pursue. All ethnic and racial groups have the right to exist, the right to a living space, and a right to preserve and pass down their way of life to future generations. In the modern world, it’s perfectly reasonable for all other groups: Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, etc., to lobby on behalf of their group interests, and it is considered empowering for them to do so. But if white people try to do the same thing, it’s racist and evil. This can be seen just by Googling “Black Pride”, “Asian Pride” and “White Pride”, and comparing what is said about each.
I’ve never been able to stand this double standard regarding the pursuit of ethnic self interest if you’re a white person. Loving your own people, culture, and heritage is not synonymous with hating others. I feel that Trump is representing the racial interests of white Americans and as far as I’m concerned, they have a right to have those interests represented, because it isn’t necessarily a bad or immoral thing. If it is, can anyone explain why it is? Because I honestly can’t see it.
As I’ve pointed out in the past, a country is a reflection of the people living there, not the other way around. America, just like Canada, New Zealand, Australia (and formerly, Rhodesia and South Africa) is a success because it was built by Europeans, and emulated the European way of doing things. It’s not as if its geographical location just magically allows it be so prosperous. If it was, the Native American tribes would have had the same success as the European settlers, and Mexico would be just as prosperous as America and Canada are.
I know it seems as if I’m going off on a tangent, but the point I’m making is this. America isn’t just successful by chance. It’s not as if the white, European, Christian settlers, just stumbled upon this great prosperity through dumb luck undeservingly. It’s successful because of the hardwork and creativity of those settlers, their children, their grandchildren and so on, up until the present day. So why should that prosperity that was created by a specific demographic, be handed over to an outside group, whose ancestors did absolutely nothing to contribute to its creation? I see absolutely no reason why it should be, so I don’t see why it’s considered wrong to exclude outsiders from coming in and demanding a piece of the pie, without having contributed anything.
Does that mean that I personally think that all Muslims should be banned from the Western world outright? No, of course not. My attitude has always been this. I don’t care what race, religion, culture etc., you are. As long as you respect the values of the society that you come to, integrate, and work hard, I have no problem with you. However, that doesn’t mean I think you have a God given right to demand that a sovereign nation open up their borders to you. The people of that sovereign nation should have the right to decide if they want you or not, and if they decide that there are no benefits to it for them, or that the benefits are outweighed by the risks involved then that’s their decision.
Immigration policy is entirely at the discretion of the host country, so they should stand to benefit from it too, and should be able to decide if it’s worth it or not. Personally, I think the risk of terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists, rape epidemics, and an erosion and possible replacement of Western culture, far outweigh any benefits of uncontrolled immigration. Now controlled and reasonable immigration policies that allows for industries with a shortage of qualified employees, to recruit and employ immigrants with the specific skills needed (for example, doctors or IT specialists)? Absolutely, I have no problem with that. But I’m not American, so I can’t tell them what to think. If they don’t agree with me, well that’s just too bad. That’s their choice.
Anyway, I think I’ve dealt with the racism accusations long enough (I’m really hoping that I’ve covered everything that I needed to). Now, if you don’t think I’m an evil hate filled Nazi, I’ll move on to other points.
He’ll start a war
The next point I’ve heard is that the guy is an unhinged lunatic who will end up starting yet another American war. I don’t buy this for a second. As I addressed in my previous post, Trump is the only candidate who seems to want to improve American relations with Russia. The two most powerful countries in the world on good terms? To me that sounds like a good thing for peace in the world. Now compare this to Hillary Clinton, who seems to be urging for a war with Russia to protect so called “moderate terrorists” in Syria (which don’tevenexist), or a war with Iran. Or on the Republican side of things, compare it to Ted Cruz who wants to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, or to carpet bomb ISIS territories (which would be considered a war crime due to the high civilian casualty rate). Who exactly is Trump threatening to start a war with? Maybe an escalation of attacks against ISIS (through legal methods, and in tandem with ongoing Russian efforts). Needless to say, Trump isn’t the one who is seeming like an unhinged warmonger to me.
Next up, is the idea that Trump is supposedly a misogynist. Now in this case, I’ve only ever heard the accusation leveled, but never specific examples of why this is so. Therefore, I’ve had to look into this myself in more detail, so if I address the wrong point here, and miss the actual specific incident or incidents that people are referencing to back up this claim, then please link it in the comments so I can see it for myself.
So after Googling the words “Donald Trump Misogynist” a lot of stuff comes up. It’s difficult to know where to start really. This link here could be a good starting point. From what I can see however from reading it, a lot of the supposed sexist/misogynistic incidents are just that he said mean things to specific women such as Hillary Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell, Megyn Kelly, etc. Often, he insults their weight, their looks, their intelligence, or their character. How exactly is that misogynistic? Why is it misogyny to call A WOMAN (not women in general) that he has a problem with personally, a fat, ugly, slob? Would it be misandry if a woman said the same things to A MAN that she had a problem with? No of course not, that would be ridiculous. In a truly equal society, a man insulting specific women shouldn’t be misogyny any more than a woman insulting specific men is misandry. So why do people focus specifically on Trump’s mean comments towards women he dislikes, while ignoring his mean comments to men he dislikes, or all the mean comments that women make about him? Why the double standard depending on the target?
On the opposite end of the scale, he has been accused of being sexist for making statements about attractive women, which are perceived as being objectifying. For example, that women on The Apprentice need to be attractive, that female news anchors need to be attractive to get their job, or has made cocky statements about his own attractiveness to women. If people find these comments sexist, then I can’t see how I can change their mind. All I can say is that I’m sure most men, even those who act like perfect gentlemen on most occasions, are guilty of objectifying women in some form. They may look at porn, they may check out attractive women that they see, they might brag about their sexual exploits to their peers etc. Just because they aren’t doing it as bluntly or as openly as he is, doesn’t mean that they are angels. Is Trump saying that a female news anchor needs to be attractive for her job, really any worse than men who don’t say it, but who pay more attention to her than they would otherwise because she’s attractive?
I’ll openly admit that this is probably a very weak defence, but I guess I just don’t see where the issue is with Trump specifically here. So he finds attractive women more appealing to look at than unattractive ones and he has an arrogant, inflated sense of his own attractiveness to women. Is that really so horrible? It’s not a particularly good thing, but I don’t see anything monstrous about it. If you look into his history a bit deeper, you’ll find that it’s not as if he only judges women based on their looks. Just the specific ones that he has no respect for. There are other women who he does respect. He’s willing to give intelligent, hardworking, and capable women the same opportunities that he gives men. For example, the person who was in charge of building his famous “Trump Tower” was actually a woman. What a horrible sexist, picking a woman to lead such an important project, because she happened to be the best person for the job.
I think his policy about prenups is just common sense. As an extremely wealthy man, he’s a prime target to attract potential gold diggers. Lets not pretend that they don’t exist. Why wouldn’t he want to take the necessary precautions to protect his own assets. If a woman really loved him for who he was and not what he owns, she should be confident that the marriage will last and shouldn’t have any problems signing a prenup.
The only comment here that I really think could be perceived as truly sexist is his tirade against a mother pumping breastmilk for her child. While he has the right to not find the sight of such things appealing, I think the mother’s right to feed her child is what comes first, so he should just get over himself and ignore it like an adult. So that’s one black mark for him. I still think the good outweighs the bad so far though.
*EDIT 2/19/16~ The link “a real life rape culture” used to link to a Wikipedia article with the title of “Taharrush Jamai”. The article has since had its title changed to “Mass Sexual Assaults in Egypt”, most likely to make it seem like an isolated incident, rather than the common occurrence it really is. To read more about this phenomenon, please check here, here, here, and here.*
Again, much like the misogyny, this is one where I’ve only heard the accusation, but never any specific examples as to why this is so. So again, I decided to Google “Donald Trump Homophobic” and look at what comes up. One site, Pink News claims that Trump is opposed to gay marriage, as he “doesn’t feel good about it”, but has admitted to attending gay weddings, and he also doesn’t believe that gay employees should be fired for their sexuality. George Takei, a gay man who would know Trump better than most of Trump’s critics, seems to think that Trump may in fact support gay marriage afterall, or is at least, coming around to it. Now lets compare him to an opportunistic flip flopper like Hillary Clinton, who opposed gay marriage when the public opposed it, and started supporting it only when the public turned in favour of it, or to Obama, who was opposed to it in the run up to the presidency (when that was popular), but changed his view later when it wasn’t. Why is Trump singled out as being particularly bad? At least, whether you agree with him or not, he seems to have some integrity regarding his views. He either sticks to his views, or the changes seem like a genuine, natural progression based on new information or experiences, rather than cynically going with whatever seems popular with the masses at the time.
Anyway I think I’ve covered all the major complaints I’ve heard against him. Now that I’ve explained why I don’t oppose him, the next thing I’d like to address is why I support him specifically over the other candidates. In terms of competition, I only see three major challenges to him. Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. I’ve already explained why I oppose Cruz and Clinton, so that only leaves Sanders to discuss.
Now on paper I will admit that I actually think Bernie Sanders is the best candidate by far. Most of his ideas sound like they’d be for the best. The main problem with Sanders however is that I think his kind of socialism is simply too radical for Americans to accept. Even if he did get into power, I just can’t see him being able to implement them. Just look at the difficulty and opposition Obamacare has faced. Sanders’ ideas are far more radical than that even, and I just can’t see him being able to pass them successfully. The resistance would be too much.
And Sanders (for all he’s accomplished in the past) doesn’t strike me as being a strong enough figure anymore to command the respect necessary to take charge and implement what he wants. Just look at this video for example.
And once you watch the video, please take the time to read the comments too. He looked very weak backing down like this, and that kind of weakness is simply unacceptable from the person who is supposed to lead the most powerful country on the planet. Can you imagine someone who backs down from hecklers like this, standing up to congress opposition to his policies, or effectively dealing with leaders like Putin on the world stage? Personally, I think this perceived weakness could be a major disadvantage for him, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who can see this.
Both Sanders and Trump alike have been hailed as anti-establishment, and this is seen as a major reason for their current popularity. The voting public is sick of Goldman Sachs funded puppets like Cruz or Clinton, and Sanders and Trump are the only two candidates offering anything different. However, the mainstream media is part of the establishment. The entire mainstream media inAmericais controlledby justsix majorcorporations. These six corporations have the power to shape public opinion, just by bombarding the public with memes and repeating them over and over, and from multiple (seemingly different) sources in a short space of time.
Now imagine if every one of these media figures was saying that Donald Trump is a racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ xenophobic/ lunatic. People might start to believe it even if there’s little or no evidence to back up the claims.
So I have to ask this question. If Bernie Sanders is anti-establishment, the mainstream media is part of the establishment, and the mainstream media has the power to shape public opinion, then why does the media speak so highly of him? Lets not pretend that the mainstream media has morals. This is the same media that lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction in order to drum up support for an unnecessary and needlessly destructive war. I doubt anyone in the establishment likes the idea of an anti-establishment president, or supports him out of some sense of “right and wrong”.
Therefore, the cynic in me says that Bernie either isn’t as anti-establishment as we’re led to believe, or if he is, he isn’t seen as much of a threat. No, I don’t have any proof of that, but based on what I’ve discussed so far, can you understand why I have this feeling? Trump on the other hand is causing them to panic. First they treated him as a joke. Then they claimed he was racist (in the hopes of scaring off his support). When that failed, they started calling him stupid. That too has failed to discourage support for him, and yet they just keep trying anything they can to bring him down, and if they aren’t doing that, they’re throwing childish temper tantrums full of ad hominem attacks, which show their true colours. Because of this, I believe Trump is the only true alternative to the establishment, and the only chance of something different in American Politics.
There are two other major reasons that I find myself drawn to Trump. The first is his stated opposition to theTrans-Pacific Partnership due to his concerns that it will lead to job losses for Americans. If he opposes this deal, and after seeing his views on trade deals with Mexico, then there is also a very real possibility that he opposes the Trans-Atlantic Trade Deal. Thatwouldn’tbe a badthingat all.
The other is his opposition to extreme political correctness and over sensitivity, and the fact that he’s moving the overton window back in a direction which allows for discussion and debate again, rather than censorship. I have nothing against the idea of being polite and respectful towards other people, but to be blunt, it has gotten too extreme. When you have idiots claiming to be cats trapped in human bodies, morbidly obese people using mobility scooters intended for disabled people, or demanding bigger seats on planes, comedians avoiding collegesbecause the students are thin skinned wusseswho can’t handle humour, or the countless misfits on Tumblr and other forms of social media, crying oppression because 99% of the world doesn’t conform to their special snowflake views, you know that political correctness has gone too far. There’s a big difference between fighting against actual oppression and discrimination (which I support), and deliberately going out of the way to find innocent or trivial matters to be offended over. Trump seems to be creating an environment that is at odds with this stupid mindset, and I for one welcome it because people like this don’t deserve the right to demand that everyone else bends to their will.
*EDIT 27/2/16~ Trump has called for the Federal Reserve to be audited. We can add this as another reason why I support him. Check out this link to read about, and this link to watch a documentary explaining what the Federal Reserve is.*
I’m not saying Trump is a saint. I’m not even saying he’s a good person. I’m just saying that for me, a normal, young, working class, white male, that out of all the main candidates, Trump seems to be the best choice to represent the interests of people like me and my loved ones. There are far more important issues in the world right now than trying not to hurt people’s feelings, issues which I think Trump will address better than others. Of course, I’m not American, so he doesn’t directly affect me, nor do I have the option of supporting him. However as America dominates global affairs, he has the opportunity to serve as an example for our leaders to follow. Working to create an environment that fosters increased employment for his own citizens, protecting the lives of his own citizens, and saving us from the fascism that is extreme political correctness. Why do people oppose this?
After the narrow defeat last week of our Glorious Leader at the hands of the creepy bastard Ted Cruz, it would have been easy to allow ourselves to fall into the pits of despair. However, it was only a symbolic loss in a long war, and today has been a much better day. Hopefully, it will be the first of many victories for our Glorious Leader. After his victory, he had some very inspiring words for us.
Just hours after winning New Hampshire’s Republican primary with 35 percent of the vote, front-runner Donald Trump weighed in on the current state of the GOP field in an interview with “CBS This Morning” early Wednesday.
“The people of New Hampshire were amazing,” Trump said, adding that “I thought I’d do well there.”
I thought you would too, Glorious Leader… I thought you would too. 🙂
He weighed in on other Republican rivals, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as a candidate who “just doesn’t have it” and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who he called a “friend.”
Hmm… I can’t imagine where he’d get the impression that Jeb just doesn’t have it.
“[Christie] did call me,” Trump said. “He just congratulated me and said, ‘It was just unbelievable what you’ve done, I mean, the numbers were fantastic.'”
When asked if he believed it was time for his New Jersey opponent to quit the presidential race, Trump responded: “I don’t know… I’d like to see a lot of people to drop out.”
I agree. The rest of these losers need to drop out of the race and hop on board the Trump Train, ASAP.
“He’s a friend of mine,” Trump added. “I thought he was very effective. And I was surprised he didn’t do better, frankly.”
The GOP front-runner brushed aside comments that he has fundamentally changed American politics.
“I haven’t done anything — unless I win. And I mean, not the nomination. I mean win the whole thing. I haven’t done anything,” Trump said.
You’ve already done a lot for us, Glorious Leader. You’ve moved the overton window in a direction that finally allows us to talk about the issues which were taboo to talk about before.
The businessman said he believes if you don’t win in the end, “you’re a failed candidate, even if you go to the final step.”
He laid out his strategy after New Hampshire, mentioning his chances at winning some Democratic-leaning states.
“I have a chance of winning New York,” he told “CBS This Morning” co-host Charlie Rose. “You know, you look at these politicians they always talk about the six states — you’ve got to win this one, that one. You have to win Ohio, you have to win Florida.
“I can change the game because I really have a chance of New York, I’m going to win Virginia,” Trump said. “I’m going to win Michigan, as an example.”
His confidence is truly inspiring.
Turning to foreign policy issues, when asked about the recent threat posed by North Korea after it launched a long-range rocket on Sunday, Trump suggested that he would force China to handle its neighbor.
“I would get China to make that guy disappear in one form or another very quickly,” Trump said.
“How do you make him disappear?” host of “CBS This Morning” Norah O’Donnell asked. “Assassinate him?”
Trump shrugged, “Well, I’ve heard of worse things frankly.”
“He’s a bad dude, and don’t underestimate him,” he added. “China has control — absolute control over North Korea…And they should make that problem disappear.”
“China is sucking us dry. They’re taking our money, they’re taking our jobs. They’re doing so much,” Trump said. “I would force the Chinese to do it — economically.”
And sure why not? Why should America be trying to run the entire world, and dealing with every single problem that occurs? North Korea is in China’s sphere of influence, so it should be China who keeps them in line, not America.
The GOP candidate also weighed in on other foreign rulers, including Russian president Vladimir Putin, who Trump has repeatedly said he had a “very good relationship” with.
“I love the fact that Russia is hitting ISIS,” he said. “And as far as I’m concerned, they’ve got to continue to hit ISIS.”
Again, this makes perfect sense. Why shouldn’t America be trying to form a better relationship with Russia? And surely we can all agree that stopping ISIS is a positive thing. Doing so would make Syria safe again, and would take away the justification for the current ongoing invasion of Europe by “Syrian refugees” fleeing the “Syrian Civil War” from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq, Dubai, Turkey, Sub-Saharan Africa, and occasionally, Syria. Yes, I know the US doesn’t like the idea of their “moderate terrorists” getting destroyed by Russia, but seeing as they don’t really exist as a distinct group from ISIS, they’ll just have to be sacrificed for the greater good of the world.
When asked if he would negotiate with Putin to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step aside, Trump said, “I don’t think it’s that important” to get rid of Assad.
“Let’s say you get rid of Assad, you knock out that government — who’s gonna take over?” he questioned. “The people that we’re backing? And then you’re gonna have, like, Libya?”
The real estate mogul warned, “Look what happened when we got rid of [Libyan President] Qaddafi.”
Trump also suggested that the U.S. should not have been involved in toppling Iraq President Saddam Hussein.
“Had we not done anything – had our politicians gone to the beach and enjoyed the sun, we would be in a lot better position than we are right now,” he added. “Saddam Hussein — no good guy but Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.”
Of course what he’s not stating here (perhaps strategically) is that Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad weren’t targeted by America because of how terrible they may or may not have been in their actions. The reality is that the United States and their allies don’t actually care about human rights or spreading democracy, as evident by their alliance with a country like Saudi Arabia, one of the most backwards and barbaric regimes in the world. If they actually cared about the things they claimed to care about, Saudi Arabia would be one of the first countries targeted for regime change. The real reason that these other dictators were targeted, demonised, and attacked is simply because they wouldn’t bow down to America or Israel.
But I digress. This isn’t the time to get into that. Now, we should just enjoy this victory, and laugh at the hysterical reactions of our enemies in the mainstream media.
As can be seen above, The Huffington Post has decided to throw a childish hissy fit, because the dumb masses didn’t vote the way they were told to. Brilliant idea there btw, Huffington Post. Attack the most popular candidate and by extension, anyone who supports him. In times past, telling people they were racist or sexist for doing something, would have had enough shaming power to make them not do it again. Unfortunately for the dinosaur media, times are changing. People are angry and fed up with the status quo, and instead of being scared of these words, they’re just getting angrier at having them used against them, when it simply isn’t true. Instead of backing down from the accusations and apologising, they’re just going to double down, and turn against their accusers. I wouldn’t be surprised to see if the Huffington Post loses readers over their pathetic outburst.
The journey isn’t over yet, and there’s still 48 more primaries to get through, before Trump can secure the nomination. Nevertheless, I am feeling a lot more optimistic after today. He might just do it.
There was some glorious news yesterday that made me smile when I read it. The low IQ rape swarm, showed just how stupid they really are by attempting a repeat of Cologne in Russia. The results were not in their favour.
A group of 51 refugees were brutally assaulted outside a night club in Murmansk, Russia, after they groped and molested women at a night club Saturday.
“Those poor innocent victims of horrible racism ;_;
We know those Russian thugs will claim that they were just trying to protect women from being sexually assaulted, but really, they just hate them for their skin colour, and were using the sexual assaults as an excuse for racially motivated violence. We know this, because all white people are evil and enjoy oppressing non-whites for absolutely no reason whatsoever.” ~ Social Justice Warriors.
The refugees had previously been ordered to leave Norway for “bad behavior” and tried their luck in Russia. What they didn’t realize when they went out clubbing in Murmansk is that Russians have less tolerance when it comes to sexual assault on local women than other European countries.
Ordered to leave Norway, but not sent all the way back to where they came from. They just become someone else’s problem instead. Absolutely ridiculous.
Russian men… alpha as fuck, and an example to us all.
The refugees tried to flee but were quickly captured by the Russians. They then took them out to the street and gave them a beating they will remember. Police arrived to break up the fight but locals report that they threw a few punches at the refugees before arresting 33 of them. Eighteen refugees were in such bad condition they had to be take to the hospital.
Even the Russian police are amazing. They actually fight side by side with their own people, unlike the police in EU countries, which seemingly go out of their way to cover for the invading rapists.
Oh, and I’m glad that the so called “refugees” were that badly beaten. It might teach them a lesson regarding what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour towards women.
Unfortunately, for every warm, feel good story with a happy ending like this one, there are significantly more which aren’t so good. Which brings me to Finland.
Unlike Russia, which seems to have found a sensible way to deal with these animals (well, the most sensible way that doesn’t involve deporting them back to wherever they came from that is), Finland has come up with a very stupid one. Check out this video to see what I mean.
They literally produced an educational video that teaches women that they can fend off a would be rapist, by putting their hand out defiantly.
If for some reason, sticking their hand out fails to deter them (I know, crazy concept. Surely the hand should have a 100% effective success rate at scaring them away) the video suggests that they should instead attack the rapist with their purse.
I find this video completely stupid on so many levels. I think the hand thing speaks for itself so I don’t need to clarify that any further. Regarding the advice to attack with the purse, this suggests that the idiots behind this video don’t think rape victims try to defend themselves any way they can already. You can be sure that every single one of them, did everything in their power to fight off their attacker, including hitting them with anything they could get their hands on. It’s not as if they just went limp and passively accepted their faith. They don’t need to be told to fight back. However, it’s just biological reality that on average, men are physically stronger than women, so in a confrontation between an average man, and an average woman, the man will almost certainly overpower the woman, and won’t be badly phased by a few clumsy shots from a purse.
The video is also extremely dishonest by portraying a single white man as the example of an attacker. The reality is, that although there obviously are individual white men, who do commit rape (and I fully condemn them), the greater threat currently, are brown men, who go around in gangs, attacking women together. One woman would have absolutely no chance fending off an attack by four or five men at once, but this stupid video makes it look as if they’ll be able to defend themselves quite easily if ever they are attacked. A better video, that actually wanted to educate women as to to how to best protect themselves, would teach them to avoid Muslim majority areas, to not go out alone at night, and to choose flight over fight, if ever they were attacked.
Thankfully enough, the YouTube community seem to agree with me.
And some of the comments.
Why can’t people in real life be as intelligent as this?