Friday, September 08, 2006

Schwarzenegger - An Honest Comment

California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in trouble again for commiting the sin of honesty. In a closed-door meeting with his advisors, Schwarzenegger made this comment:

"I mean Cuban, Puerto-Rican, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."

Well, apparently this is a big sin for him to have said this. It's "racism", afterall, the biggest and deadliest sin of modern liberalism. However, California's Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia has stepped forward in defense of Schwarzenegger and declared that she often calls herself a "hot-blooded Latina".

Gee, it makes you wonder if liberals have ever heard of these theories before. It's pretty well understood by the man on the street that Puerto Ricans and Cubans are more hot-blooded than say Canadians. The worst you can say about the Governor's comments are that they were impolite. But of course the liberals know this. Their desire to "punish" and stamp out all signs of "racism" stems from the fact they are really some of the most racist people on the planet.

See, what liberals care about is "apperance". Everyone should always say the right thing and never offend anyone. A single comment that offends say blacks, women, or homosexuals can lose a man his career, despite his other values. Words and appearance are now vastly more important than substance.

For liberals, it's all about appearing to be support justice, progress, tolerance, and opportunity while really hording power to yourself and doing little real work. See government workers, trial lawyers, or journalist for example. Any kind of emotionally honest racism, sexism, classism, tribalism, homophobia, public declarations in belief in God, ect interfere in this artifical world they've created for themselves.

Schwarzenegger's comments weren't even made in public. Liberal journalist always feel the need to hunt for these kind of off-the-cuff remarks to "punish" anyone who steps outside of the ideology. I've covered the distasteful motives of liberal journalist in a earlier piece so I won't go into them again. Nonetheless, what kind of world are they creating where people are going to feel the need to constantly edit their thinking to remove anything that might offend the ideology? It's a joyless world where spontaneity, honesty, and morality will wither on the vine of life due to lack of nourishment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_tape_6;_ylt=AnbMr4X0aZP3r8L3qGPHfpHtPRYi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

John McCain is no "Straight Talker"

John McCain has become the favorite candidate of the set who which to be seen as "moderate" or "above the fray". Really, this is quite sad when one considers the actions of the politician himself. McCain has shown numerous times he has no opinions of his own and just goes with the flow. His "straight-shooting maverick" persona is just a carefully crafted marketing strategy to pickup disenfranchised voters. McCain is really the prototypical "Washington Insider".

Let's for example consider McCain's "straight talk" about the Religous Right. In 2000 he called men like Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance". However, now that the winds have changed, McCain has changed direction 180 degrees. In 2006 he went to Falwell's Liberty University to kneel before the Religious Right because he needs their vote. He later went on Larry King to say "I admire the Religious Right for the dedication and zeal they put into the political process". So which is it McCain? Are Falwell and his ilk "agents of intolerance" or are they admirable for their "dedication and zeal"? I guess it depends on who's vote you need at the time.

Or consider McCain's relationship with George W. Bush. In the 2000 Republican Primary in South Carolina, Bush's campaign used such nasty and immoral tactics to defeat McCain that the Senator said "that there is a special place in hell for people like those". In 2004 McCain said that helping Bush get reelected "was one of the proudest moments of my life".

Uh-huh. Words have no meaning for a man like McCain. He is only interested in one thing and that is power.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

NAFTA Superhighway

This is a “mind-boggling concept,” exploded Lou Dobbs. It must cause Americans to think our political and academic elites have “gone utterly mad.” What had detonated the mild-mannered CNN anchor?

Dr. Robert Pastor, vice chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, had just appeared before a panel of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations—to call for erasing all U.S. borders and a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada in a North American union stretching from Prudhoe Bay to Guatemala.

Under the Pastor-CFR plan, the illegal alien invasion would be solved by eliminating America’s borders and legalizing the invasion. We would no longer defend the Rio Grande.

“What we need to do,” Pastor instructed, “is forge a new North American Community. . . . Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through tolls.”

So this is probably the plan all along. Mix up matters so much that the concept of getting rid of borders all together seems viable. Meanwhile back on the home front, poverty continues to increase while the rich keep getting richer. Let's bring in several million more Mexicans, that should help.

The American people never supported NAFTA, and they are angry over Bush’s failure to secure the border—but a shotgun marriage between our two nations appears prearranged. Central feature: a ten-lane, 400-yard-wide NAFTA Super Highway from the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, up to and across the U.S. border, all the way to Canada. Within the median strip dividing the north and south car and truck lanes would be rail lines for both passengers and freight traffic, and oil and gas pipelines.

As author Jerome Corsi describes this Fox-Bush autobahn, container ships from China would unload at Lazaro Cardenas, a port named for the Mexican president who nationalized all U.S. oil companies in 1938. From there, trucks with Mexican drivers would run fast lines into the United States, hauling their cargo to a U.S. customs inspection terminal—in Kansas City, Mo. From there, the trucks would fan out across America or roll on into Canada. Similar super-highways from Mexico through the United States into Canada are planned.

According to Corsi, construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway, is to begin next year.

The beneficiaries of this NAFTA Super Highway project would be the contractors who build it and the importers and outlet stores for the Chinese-manufactured goods that would come flooding in. The losers would be U.S. longshoremen, truckers, manufacturers and taxpayers.

This is all going on NOW, and American culture has decayed so much that few care enough to stop it.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/buchanan.cgi/Immigration/The_NAFTA_Superhigh.html?seemore=y

Difference Between Men and Women

One difference between men and women universally understood across cultures:

Sheik Jassem Al-Mutawah explains

Monday, September 04, 2006

Men Not Marrying

According to some manganias on the internet, things are the same as they have always been in regards to the instutition of marriage. These statistics prove otherwise:

"About 18 percent of men ages 40 to 44 with less than four years of college have never married, according to census estimates. That is up from about 6 percent a quarter-century ago. Among similar men ages 35 to 39, the portion jumped to 22 percent from 8 percent in that time."


Proves people are not marrying as much as before. Period.

"In the past guys could drop out of school after finishing high school, or even without finishing, and go into a factory and get a steady job with benefits,” said Valerie K. Oppenheimer, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “But there has been a deterioration in young men’s economic position, and women are hesitant to marry a man who is likely to be an economic dependent."


Why not? Aren't the sexes now equal and gender roles flexible, as the modernist tell us? Before, the man was expected to work long and hard to support his wife and family. Basically, the woman was an "economic dependent". Now, the man is still expected to work long and hard to support his wife and family, despite an ever decreasing pool of decent jobs for men due to the feminist reworking of society?

As a response to some of these trends, many women with limited education have turned theirs sights on “marrying up,” choosing men who may be older, more established and more educated.


So what about men with limited educations? Can they turn their sights on "marrying up"? No, women marry up. If women are marrying up, they aren't marrying down.

Yet economics and education have changed to make things a lot more suitable for women. There is a disconnect between reality and expectations developing. Women want to have careers and make a lot of money, but they want a large pool of wealthy men available when they feel it's time to quit working so they can spit out children. Sorry "ladies", can't have it both ways.

"Why would you want to be in a stable relationship with somebody who is unstable?” asked Ketny Jean-Francois, a never-married 30-something from the Bronx who has supported her 3-year-old son on her unemployment check and food stamps since leaving her job as a security guard a year ago. “It’s a myth that all women want to marry."


Ah, there you go - to the meat of the matter. The welfare state has become the new lower-end breadwinner for today's liberated, godless female. Instead of seeking out males on the lower-half to build a family with, it is far easier for an unwed female to just hit up Uncle Sam when times get tough. Uncle Sam will provide housing, food, transportation, child care services, and police protection to any helpless female who wants to have a family without learning to submit herself to a man. How can any male making near minimum wage provide all of this, and without making any demands themselves on the poor women?

NY Times Story

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Men Not Working

Yet another lovely side effect of womyn recreating society to suit their lunancy. 13% of American men aged 30-55 out of work today compared with 5% in the 1960s. The numbers are similar in Europe and Japan.

NY Times Story

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Gold Digging Model Cashes In

Former Beatle Paul McCartney could lose up to a quarter of his estimated $1.56-billion fortune after separating from his second wife Heather Mills, legal experts said on Thursday.

That would equate to roughly $1.9 million for every week of their short-lived four-year marriage.

McCartney, 63, and former model Mills, 38, announced their separation on Wednesday, blaming media intrusion for the collapse of one of the most high profile showbusiness marriages.

Lawyers believe the divorce would never be allowed to degenerate into a messy court case but they said McCartney's decision not to seal a pre-nuptial deal could cost him dear in a private settlement.


href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060518/music_nm/mccartney_dc">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060518/music_nm/mccartney_dc


Rule #1 of modern marriage - always get a pre-nuptial.

Monday, May 08, 2006

Women - Self-Centered No Matter What

Devastating article today by the Eternal Bachelor on the movement by post-feminist feminist to "accept" marriage and allow men to take care of them. Basically, his message is "so what?":

Seriously, these post-feminist-feminists are not doing us men any favours. What they want is all that matters and they expect us men to shrug off a couple of generations of male-bashing and scamper over and provide for them and be grateful for the honour of providing and supporting them!

Yeah, right.


http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/2006/05/were-victims-of-feminism-too_07.html

The major theme from the post-feminist feminist is that they are now accepting the right to marry young and allow a man to foot their bills for the next 40 years. Of course, what they don't address is even more important. They fail to note that the balance of power between the genders has been put out of balance by issues such as divorce, family court, and economic equality. Basically, the post-feminist feminist are saying they'll marry - as long as men keep their mouth shuts, pay the bills on time, and don't bother trying to exert their natural rights as husbands and heads of households. Today's post-feminist feminist have the entitled mentality of Queen Cleopatra of Egypt; is this something men are supposed to be happy about?

The post-feminist feminist don't get it - their role is not to accept or demand anything from men. Their role is actually to serve their husbands and children as mother and wife. This concept is unfortunately foreign to the vast bulk of Western women today. Instead they have a narcissistic outlook on matters - the man is basically a two-dimensional stick figure who's only purpose is to validate the female's vanity and immediately satisfy her every materialistic desire.

Guess what, grrrls: we will not be like Marc Antony and follow the road to self-destruction just because you've now decided to drop your man-hate and allow yourself to marry.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Political Correctness - Why it Kills the Spirit

For anyone who has had to toe the political correctness line, you know how bad it can be for your morale. You have to go along with the idea that all religions, cultures, "value systems", races, genders, and sexual practices are the "same". It's utter nonsense - and you know it. However, to get along with the establishment in today's feminized, western society, one is forced to at least not question certain matters. There can be no open debate on such questions as whether giving women the right to vote was a good idea or if multi-culturalism actually works or just causes more friction. This inability to discuss logically many of the vital social issues deadens man's ability to act freely.

Take for example single parenting. Anyone with a sliver of common sense will recognize that raising children takes two parents. Hundreds of studies have even proven this. Yet still we are supposed to pay homage to the "courage" and "dignity" of those who choose to be single mothers. Bullshit. Give me a break. How about we shame them instead for their immoral choice and pressure them to give up the baby for adoption? Better yet, don't give single mothers any welfare for having children.

Friday, April 28, 2006

How Modern American Women Think

A perfect example from today's "Dear Amy" column on how the modern American women thinks about relationships:
Dear Amy,

I have been with my husband for seven years, and we got married two years ago. We have two beautiful children.

We have a mutual friend whom I find very attractive. This friend and I have been talking to each other for about six months. We also see each other sometimes
(means she is having carnal relations with him on the side - Hammer). When we talk or see each other, I feel as if I'm in high school again-all giddy and whatnot.

I really don't know what to do. I love my husband, but I'm not in love with him and am starting to get a lot more feelings for this friend of ours. He is five years younger than I am, and I'm afraid of what our other friends and family might say.

CONFUSED IN DENVER

I'm not making this up. This is how shallow, inconsiderate, and downright evil American women are becoming today. Obviously, the only purpose of the relationship in her eyes is to make her feel "all giddy and whatnot". Nothing about loyalty, respect, admiration, motherhood, security, and caring for another individual. It's ALL about her and feeling "all giddy and whatnot". She isn't concerned about breaking her husband's heart and tearing apart her children's lives, but rather that "friends and family" could, oh my gosh, admonish her for doing something wrong.

Poor baby. Let's pamper you as you're obviously a helpless female caught up in male sexual oppression. Maybe Oprah can help you solve this dilemma? Now obviously, your husband is not giving you the tender love and understanding you are entitled to by birthright of vagina. Otherwise he'd make you feel "all giddy and whatnot". So dump that cold-blooded and inconsiderate man, and move on to the next one who can make you feel giddy inside again. Be sure to get a lawyer so your husband pays his fair share of alimony and child support payments. After all, it takes two to tango. Remember, it's all about YOUR happiness. Don't look back, sister.

United States of Matriarchy

America is now a matriarchy. Period. This is the reality for most men out there and why the nuclear family is so rare these days. On a host of matters women are holding better cards than their male counterparts. This puts men in a poor position and women are using this leverage against them to create their feminized, touchy-feely world. It isn't so nice for tens of millions of men, however, as they are enslaved to their female masters. Of course more and more men are rejecting this game and dropping out from it all together:

1. Reproductive Rights - Women have them, men don't. Simple as that. If a woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't, tough luck for the man. The fetus is being flushed down the toilet. If a woman wants to have a child and the man doesn't, too bad. The man is going to have to pay child support and alimony for 20 years. All women have to do is forget the pill one day and boom - they have the man's wallet on their hook for 20 years. A wonderful tool women have that allows them to control men and get them to do their bidding.

2. Economic Equality - Women can now support themselves in the working world and no longer need a man's income to survive. This takes away one of the only cards men have traditional had - the bread winner. Now a woman has no reason to put up with anything from a man. Men must be perfect and walk on their toes to keep the modern liberated woman happy and content. The modern man's role is apparently to "entertain" his female betters. Hence the rise of metrosexuals and other pussified men. Men no longer have the masculine "father knows best" role, putting them further to the margins of the family.

3. Government as Daddy - The government now acts as father to a woman's children, especially in the lower classes. Daddy government provides single mothers with housing, food, clothing, day-care, and transport. This is a much better deal for a lower-class female than what her male counterparts could ever provide. The lower-class male has limited earning potential (many times because they now longer have access to better jobs held by women). These lower-class males are therefore unsuitable as providers and the lower-class female has zero reasons to want one in the home. The males in turn no longer have any incentives to try to remain in the home or excel in life so they turn their energies to other endeavors. We see this effect most clearly in the modern black ghetto. So-called "strong black women" rule the family while roleless black males roam the streets engaging in primitive warfare. This is the future that matriarchy has in store for all of us.

4. Family Court - This is where women go to collect on their domination of the modern male. Most divorces are due to the woman and usually for frivolous reasons such as "emotional fulfillment" and "boredom". Nonetheless, it is almost always women who gain control of the kids and house. Men are usually stuck with alimony payments for years on end. So men can lose their role as father and much of their assets and future earnings all on the word of the woman. A man is now considered nothing more than a chattel slave to serve the material needs of women and children. He no longer has any reciprocal rights from women and children for his energies and efforts, however.

5. Government as Protector - In the past the man was good to have around as protector of the hearth. Those days are long gone. The government now provides police, prisons, and courts to protect women's interest. Women can now also own guns. It is mostly men who end up in the sights of the government security state. Aimless male street violence is directly related to the breakdown of the traditional male role as leader of the family. Instead of dealing with this, the matriarchy just wants to imprison or cast aside males who will not adapt.

6. Cultural Expectations - This has to do with traditions and one of the main reasons men keep putting up with the current state of matriarchy. Despite economic equality, woman still expect the man to make more money than them and to provide material comforts. Of course, this is now more difficult for the man as they have to compete with women for good jobs. Woman also expect to have flexibility. They want to work when and for how long they want. If they have children, they likely will no longer want to work. For men, however, they must keep working and working to satisfy the never ending demands of the modern materialistic woman.

7. The Mass Media - Television, movies, magazines, and other media sources continually push matriarchial interest over those of men. Men are protrayed as shallow cluess idiots time and time again, only to be rescued by the noble efforts of superior womanfolk. If they aren't idiots, men are shown as violent thugs hunting down innocent women. Watch a typical television show and you'll quickly get the idea. On the other hand, men as the moral superiors of superficial women is not something you will see much. However, this is the reality of how things are today. It is men who want to restore morality to both public and private life, while women are more concerned with having fun and forcing their husband to buy them a new house and SUV.

8. Technological Changes - Changes in technology over the last few hundred years have neutered one of man's greatest assets, his sheer strength. The ability to plow a field or lift steel beams isn't as vital anymore. Technology has invented machines that do many of these physical chores. Increasingly work is about multi-tasking, information management, communicating, and social dexterity, tasks at which woman excel at.

9. Decline of Religion - Most major religions call on women to be submissive to men. This is good from a social point of view as it gives men a stake in society, which women naturally have due to their ability to produce children. Men are naturally more morally inclined while women are by their nature self-absorbed and shallow. Religion recognized this reality and attempted to seperate the two sexes so the assets of both could be harnessed. Men had a role given to them by God and their energies where directed towards bigger and better things. Women were limited to nurturing roles, as their narcissism was correctly identified as a danger to the very foundations of society. Before religion, before women were "oppressed", men ran free in the wild like animals, engaging in violence and sport with fellow men while women stayed home to nurse in the caves. Sounds a lot like the black ghetto, actually.

10. Stigmatization of Wife Beating - Wife beating is a big no-no these days. Unfortunately, physical abuse was the only way for men to counter woman's natural tendencies to engage in emotional abuse. Note that emotional abuse has not be outlawed. The reality is that woman need a good, carefully directed beating occasionally to keep their self-centered, manipulative characteristics in check. Without this, these characteristics increase with every generation. Today's American women are now totally useless as wifes and most American men will not marry them unless they are very foolish.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy

Well argued case as to why patriarchy is the only sustainable model for civilization to follow. Introduction by The Eternal Bachelor:

It's a very well written piece by a guy named Dr. Daniel Amneus (left) into the effects of an increasingly matriarchal society as it's advance naturally erodes the patriarchal model.

It does make the assumption that societies used to be be matriarchal, which is normally an unspoken belief of feminists, although naturally Dr. Amneus reaches a slightly different conclusion; namely, feminists think everything turned to shit when the patriarchy took over; Dr Amneus, however, says that the rise of the patriarchy was when everything improved and got all nice 'n civilized. Men, he argues, only aim to be productive, civilized and protective of women and children when they were rewarded by the love of women and the legitimacy of their own children. In matriarchal societies, where women are promiscuous, owe loyalty to no-one but themselves and where children belong to their mother and her only, men have no motivation or desire to strive for success or to give a fuck about women and children, and so the whole society doesn't progress and struggles just to survive.


http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Library/Amneus/garbage/index.html

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Domestic Chastisement

Advice from learned men of faith on the proper utility of domestic chastisement:

When you see your wife commit an offense, don’t rush at her with insults and violent blows. Scold her sharply, bully and terrify her. And if this still doesn’t work, take up a stick and beat her soundly, for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body. Then readily beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern for her soul, so that the beating will redound to your merit and her good.

Friar Cherubino of Siena

For as [the husband] is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children.

Sir William Blackstone

To use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or go behind the curtain.

Mississippi Supreme Court

A wife isn't a jug, she won't crack if you hit her ten times.

Russian Proverb

A spaniel, a woman, and a walnut tree, the more they're beaten, the better they be.

English Proverb

A wife married is like a pony bought; I'll ride her and whip her as I like.

Chinese Proverb

Monday, April 24, 2006

Sad but True

America's once noble and decent God fearing womenfolk have mostly turned into this due to the wonders of feminism and political correctness:



Menfolk can either play along with their vanity and shallowness or not. Depends on how much one values the sinful temptations of the flesh.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Why Feminism is a Farce

Good article from Craig Conway in the UK why feminism is complete nonsense. Uses carefully reasoned logic to destruct the obviously twisted tenants of the feminist ideology. Therefore I suspect feminist will have great trouble understanding the article's points:

http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/masc.htm

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Seeking Chaste Germanic Girl

Faithful companion of the weaker sex required for holy matrimony. Chaste girl of robust Germanic breeding stock and Catholic upbringing preferred. Must have a strong back, quiet presence, gentle spirit, and modest worldly desires. Should be agreeable to austere conditions and honest manly discipline. Ownership of wooded acreage (20+) and draught animals would be suitably beneficial.

They Want Us To Forget

A good, cutting article by Pat Buchanan on the results of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) over the last twelve years:

As I write these lines, the big black headline on Drudge reads, "Arizona Governor Orders Troops to Mexican Border."

Both Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and New Mexico's Bill Richardson have now declared a "state of emergency" on their border.

Why? Because our border is descending into a state of anarchy, as 5,000 illegal aliens daily attempt to cross our Mexican frontier and drug traffickers, with renegade Mexican army troops sometimes backing them up, attempt to run narcotics into the United States.

Didn't the liberal elites during that era (like George Bush I and Bill Clinton) say NAFTA would solve the problem with illegal immigration as Mexicans would have no reason to leave their country anymore? If you remember this, raise your hand.

It is now a dozen years since NAFTA passed. We can measure its success in the clamor for fences and troops on the border, and in Mexico's having displaced Colombia as the primary source of the marijuana, meth and cocaine flowing into the United States.

But it was the economic argument that our elites – Bush I and James Baker, Dole and Gingrich, Clinton and Carter – used to sell NAFTA.

In one of the big propaganda pieces of that great debate, "NAFTA: An Assessment," an October 1993 paper published by the International Institute of Economics, Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott wrote: "Our job projections reflect a judgment that, with NAFTA, U.S. exports to Mexico will continue to outstrip Mexican exports to the United States, leading to a U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of about $7 to $9 billion annually by 1995."

The authors further predicted the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico would rise to $9 billion to $12 billion a year between 2000 and 2010.

And what happened? Charles McMillion of MGB Services, using Commerce Department data through 2005, has tallied the results.

A year after NAFTA passed, the U.S. trade surplus had vanished. From 1995 through 1998, we ran $20 billion trade deficits with Mexico. From 1999 through 2005, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico grew every year, from $27 billion in 1999 to last year's $54 billion.

Where Hufbauer and Schott had predicted $100-plus billion in trade surpluses with Mexico from 1994 to today, NAFTA delivered some $400 billion in cumulative U.S. trade deficits. A $500 billion mistake by the crack Hufbauer-Schott team.

So the "well-educated" set were off by a half-trillion dollars in their assestment? This is pretty amazing. Aren't all those fancy-dandy economics books they read at the university supposed to make them better and smarter than us? Too bad for them (and us) that they didn't listen to the common man on the street at the time. He had this deal better pegged than these "intellectual elites" ever did.

Is there a silver lining? Are we not selling Mexico high-value items, while she exports to us the products of her less-skilled labor?

Again, the opposite has occurred. When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.

As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as "Auto Capital of the World"?

What?! We import more automobiles from Mexico than we export to the entire world? Didn't the elites at the time say NAFTA would create "markets" in Mexico, leading to more automobile exports to the country? Anyone hear the echos of a giant sucking sound?

What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico.

Consider the range of items the most advanced nation on earth now sells to Mexico, and Mexico sells to us.

Mexico's leading exports to the United States in 2005 were autos, oil, electrical machinery, computers, furniture, textiles and apparel. The Made-in-the-USA goods that reaped us the greatest revenue in trade with Mexico were plastics, chemicals, cereals, cotton, meat, paper, oil seed, aluminum, copper and knitted or crocheted fabrics.

U.S.-Mexico trade calls to mind the trade relationship between Betsy Ross' America and the England of the Industrial Revolution, with Mexico in the role of England. Our exports to Mexico read like a ship's manifest from Bangladesh.

This would be humorous if it weren't true. The U.S. has become the supplier of raw material and foodstuffs to industrial nations like Mexico and China. Didn't the elites at the time say NAFTA would lead to increasing exports of high-value goods, creating high-value industries and increased worker wages in the U.S.?

The American people were had. NAFTA was never a trade deal. NAFTA was always an enabling act – to enable U.S. corporations to dump their American workers and move their factories to Mexico.

This should be crystal clear at this point to anyone with a brain.

For U.S. companies, it was one sweet deal. At zero cost, they were allowed to rid themselves of their American workers; get out from under contributing to Social Security and Medicare; and slough off the burden of environmental, health-and-safety, wage-and-hour and civil-rights laws – and were liberated to go abroad and hire Mexicans who would work for one-fifth to one-tenth of what their unwanted American workers cost.

What NAFTA, GATT, Davos and the WTO have always been about is freeing up transnationals to get rid of First World workers, while assuring them they could hold on, at no cost, to their First World customers.

Indeed.

When one considers who finances the Republican Party, funds its candidates, and hires its former congressmen, senators and Cabinet officers at six- and seven-figure retainers to lobby, it is understandable that the GOP went into the tank.

But why did the liberals, who paid the price of mandating all those benefits for American workers and imposing all those regulations on U.S. corporations, go along? That's the mystery. About NAFTA there is no mystery. There never really was.

http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-060310-Indian.htm

There is no mystery. The liberal elites loath and despise ordinary Americans and their traditional values. They seek to enlarge their power and influence by creating a depended class of government workers and contractors, welfare receipients, drug addicts, prisoners and ex-cons, and immigrant slaves. Around this pool of roughly 100 million purposely downtrodden people, they will build their socialist utopia.

Friday, April 21, 2006

War on the "Public Schools"

According to the libertine modernist that now guide and direct the course of our Western culture, there is now a "war" being perpetrated by the "right-wing" against public education. Take for example this magniloquence from the Yale-educated labor lawyer and "sociologist" quoted below:

It's no secret that one of the top priorities for the rightwing movement has been privatization of public education through vouchers and tax credits. But the raw fact is that the public has consistently rejected their initiatives when they've come to a vote-- every time the voters have faced ballot initiatives on the issue, they have overwhelmingly rejected them by a cumulative 68% to 32% margin in the 12 ballot initiatives from 1970 to 2000.

While the privatizers have not given up on voucher efforts in specific states, nationally they have increasingly turned to subtler approaches to set the stage for later campaigns to dismantle the public schools. They attack the need for additional funding for schools, while concentrating on distracting tactics like the so-called "65% Solution" and incremental privatization such as "virtual schools" springing up across the country.


http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28038


Two words: grow up. It's time for the adults, assuming there are enough left at this point, to take charge of public education and return to time tested, reality-based methods of physical and spiritual development, formation of character, and academic mastery. Every half-decade or so the scatterbrained liberal educational establishment concocts some new fangled formula that is going to cure what ails public education. They also claim if we only allocated more tax money toward their blessed teachers, all would be well. Apparently they expect us to believe that it is material poverty that is impacting teacher's ability to lead and develop our children.

Let's get serious for a moment. Public education is currently nothing more than a jobs center for unemployable, overeducated liberal mediocres. We could get the same results if we closed down the public schools and sent the motivated children to the public library to learn on their own. Better results, in fact. Public high schools are nothing more than dating clubs for unrestrained teenagers.

Traditional, conservative Catholic methods of education are the only worthwhile endeavor worthy of our time and resources at this point. Leftist groups blocking this course of action such as the National Education Association, American Civil Liberty Union, National Organization for Women, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons, amongst others, are a disgrace to the people they claim to be helping. The rising levels of children born out of wedlock, divorce and broken marriages, prostitution, pornography usage, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, chronic gambling, street violence, mental insanity, homelessness, imprisonment, business bankruptcy, unemployment, school dropouts, and political corruption attest to our failure to develop healthy, devout men and women of Christian character and temperament.

Spinless white liberals make the claim that Catholic, single-sex educational methods are racist and exclusionary, lead to poor relations between the sexes and repress women, restrict children's "freedom of expression", don't prepare youths for the "real world", snobbish and produce over competitiveness rather than camaraderie amongst peers, stifle individuality, too focused on supplemental matters such as religious doctrine rather than academic learning, and too rigid and uninspiring. For those bubbleheads who agree with the modernist's interpretation of matters, let's compare the results of Opus Dei schooling philosophy with those of the liberal-led public schools:

Racism and Exclusion

Public School

Racial harmony and brotherhood in the public schools.
Racial harmony and brotherhood in the public schools.


Opus Dei School

Opus Dei develops boys into men regardles of race.
Racial harmony and brotherhood at Opus Dei.



Self-Expression

Public School


Public high school youths freely expressing their inner child through clothing, hair style, and dance.


Opus Dei School


Opus Dei fourth-grader expressing himself by reciting Robert Frost poem at school's outdoor amphitheater.



Relations Between Men and Women

Public School


Height of inter-gender relations and female development following the feminist orthodoxy.


Opus Dei School


These two modest Opus Dei girls at a mixer don't appear to be repressed or in need of feminist liberation theory.



Preparing for the Real World

Public School


Career day at the public school: community college, Walmart, military enlistment, welfare, prison.


Opus Dei School


Opus Dei guidance counselor helps senior student make the choice between attending Notre Dame, John Hopkins, or West Point.



Camaraderie and Esprit de Corps

Public School


Typical spirit of friendship and achievement in the public schools.


Opus Dei School


Typical Opus Dei camaraderie and esprit de corps during after-school activities.



Individuality

Public School


Every public school student is unique in their own special way, just like everyone else.


Opus Dei School


Opus Dei students wear different colored neck ties.



Mixing Religion & Education

Public School


These two public school students don't have religion to distract them from their modernist liberal education.


Opus Dei School


Opus Dei students take break from religious brainwashing to have English Literature class.



Method of Instruction

Public School


Example of the non-rigid, inspiring teaching methods used in the public schools.


Opus Dei School


Opus Dei third-graders huddling with their rigid, uninspiring instructor in single-sex classroom.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Farming in Indiana Territory

The honorable David Baillie Warden reports on farming conditions in the Indiana Territory:
The common depth of the soil is from two to three feet; but along the Wabash, in forming wells, it was found to be 22 feet, and underneath a stratum of fine white sand was discovered....The state is watered by the rivers Ohio and Wabash, and their numerous branches...The soil is well adapted to maize, wheat, oats, rye, hemp, and tobacco. On the best lands the average produce of Indian corn is said to be from fifty to sixty bushels per acre; that of wheat about fifty, the bushel weighing fifty-eight pounds. In many places, the land is too rich for this grain, which, though it does not become smutty, is not so good as in the state of New York...The country is admirably fitted for rearing cattle and swine, having great abundance of acorns and roots on which they feed.


Edmund Dana also reports:
Instead, it has been esteemed by intelligent men, who have often traversed it, in all directions, in point of rural scenery, a copious supply of pure water, fertility of soil and security to health, equal to any part of the western country...The surface in this part of the tract is delightfully variegated by gentle undulations...The production of Indiana in corn, wheat, rye, barley, oats, beans, peas, Irish, sweet potatoes, and garden vegetables of every description, are abundant.


Matthew Foster of Pike County writes on his first five years of farming in Indiana:
When we came here, there was not a tree cut down. Now we have ten acres in corn (maize) five acres in wheat, 5 acres in oats, two acres in grass. We have got a house, barn, stables, and cattle sheds, but they are all built of logs...We have 13 cattle, nearly a hundred hogs. The hogs and cows get fat in the woods, never feed them only in winter. We have two excellent horses and a wagon and other farming utensils.


http://www.connerprairie.org/historyonline/farming.html

Mexican Hospitality

Considered felons by the government, these migrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers simply take their money.

Must be the evil Americans again, right?

While migrants in the United States have held huge demonstrations in recent weeks, the hundreds of thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico suffer mostly in silence.

And though Mexico demands humane treatment for its citizens who migrate to the U.S., regardless of their legal status, Mexico provides few protections for migrants on its own soil. The issue simply isn't on the country's political agenda, perhaps because migrants make up only 0.5 percent of the population, or about 500,000 people - compared with 12 percent in the United States.

The level of brutality Central American migrants face in Mexico was apparent Monday, when police conducting a raid for undocumented migrants near a rail yard outside Mexico City shot to death a local man, apparently because his dark skin and work clothes made officers think he was a migrant.

No, it is the goodly Mexicans. Apparently, they don't take too kindly to strangers.

Undocumented Central American migrants complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the U.S. side of the border, where migrants may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail.

"If you're carrying any money, they take it from you - federal, state, local police, all of them," said Carlos Lopez, a 28-year-old farmhand from Guatemala crouching in a field near the tracks in Tultitlan, waiting to climb onto a northbound freight train.

"The soldiers were there as soon as we crossed the river," he said. "They said, 'You can't cross ... unless you leave something for us.'"

Looks like the Mexicans are pretty harsh to immigrants trying to enter Mexico. Luckily for them the eggheaded white liberals in the U.S. actually believe their cries about illegal immigrant "justice" and "rights". What the Mexicans really want is policy that helps Mexicans. Not too hard to understand why Mexicans want to help Mexicans but America's white liberals need to grow some balls.

While Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal said Monday that "Mexico is a country with a clear, defined and generous policy toward migrants," the nation of 105 million has legalized only 15,000 immigrants in the past five years, and many undocumented migrants who are detained are deported.

What?! Mexico has only allowed 15,000 legal immigrants in five years? These guys are bigotted, fear-mongering xenophobics! Don't they care about the impoverished masses south of their border? No wait, that can't be true. According to white liberals all Mexicans are easy going, salt of the earth kind of people and love all other Latinos.

And while Mexicans denounce the criminalization of their citizens living without papers in the United States, Mexican law classifies undocumented immigration as a felony punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common.

Again, the Mexicans are blantly hypocritical. Not that I blame them - they are only supporting what's best for Mexico. It's the bubbleheaded white liberals that run the country like George Bush who are to blame for buying into the Mexican's rhetoric.

Like the United States, Mexico is becoming reliant on immigrant labor. Last year, then-director of Mexico's immigration agency, Magdalena Carral, said an increasing number of Central Americans were staying in Mexico, rather than just passing through on their way to the U.S.

She said sectors of the Mexican economy facing labor shortages often use undocumented workers because the legal process for work visas is inefficient.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1102AP_Mexico_Mistreating_Migrants.html

Labor shortages in Mexico?! Guatemalans doing jobs that Mexicans won't do? I thought all the Mexicans coming into the U.S. couldn't get jobs in Mexico? Could it be that Mexicans are actually coming into the U.S. because of the "purchasing power parity (PPP)" principle? Sort of like American high school dropouts going to Canada with their friends and extended family to shovel mulch for $65 per hour and sending $5,000 home per month.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Good Sex?

Sex is more satisfying in countries where women and men are considered equal, according to an international study of people between the ages of 40 and 80 by researchers at the University of Chicago.

....................................................

The study was led by sociologist Edward Laumann, considered a top authority on the sociology of sex, who believes the findings show that relationships based on equality lead to more satisfaction for both genders.

"Male-centered cultures where sexual behavior is more oriented toward procreation tend to discount the importance of sexual pleasure for women," Laumann said.

"When mama's not happy, nobody's happy," he said.

http://www.nbc11.com/health/8827084/detail.html

Apparently modernity now rates relations between husband and wife using the luxuria yardstick.

Retort to the Feminist Cult

The cult of Feminism has infected Western Civilization far too much at this point. With this I agree with the Islamist. It started innocently enough back in the 19th century but has spiralled out of control over the last several decades. According to the Feminist, history between the sexes comes down to males brutally repressing their female counterparts, keeping them enslaved to a narrowly defined gender role. To solve this problem, we should not turn to the Islamist, but to the statements readily available in the New Testament:

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head-it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3-16).

Woman is not "Mother Earth" or "Wiccan Goddess". She is "the glory of man" and "man was not made for woman, but woman for man". Women should accept their role as aid and assistant to man, rather than attempting to push for more power and "independence" in Western society.

“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.” (Ephesians 5:21-24).

“Wives, be obedient to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.” (Colossians 3:18).

Wives should be "subject" and "obedient" to their husbands in the same manner as man is subject to Christ. Husbands should love their wives and not treat them poorly. There would be no "war between the sexes" if men and women knew their proper traditional roles. Nor should there be "honor killings" as commited in Islam, as men should avoid dealing too harshly with the sins of their women.

“Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. Let not yours be the outward adoring with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you. Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:1-7).

Women should be "chaste" and "gentle and quiet". They should avoid provocative clothing and adornments. Men should "honor" the "weaker sex" and be considerate of their wishes. However, wives must obey their husbands regardless of their opinion.

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15).

Woman should be submissive and hold no "authority over men". They should be "modest" and avoid being a deceitful "transgressor". The good woman will be holy and avoid any dishonesty in their actions.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Lawyers Shakedown Epson

Trial lawyers have won another victory against American economic competitiveness. Lawsuit was over the fact that Epson's printers incorrectly reported empty ink cartridges. Of course a small reserve is needed to prevent the printer head from going dry. Never mind, cheaper to just give into the shark lawyers. Consumers will get $45 credit to spend at Epson's online store on overpriced goods while trial lawyers will get 25% of total award in hard cash. Epson is apparently not required to fix this reporting problem. Probably because it wasn't a problem in the first place...

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1790

Desperate Mexicans

"Desperate Housewives" vixen Eva Longoria is stepping out of the house with her political views on immigration, saying it's "unfortunate" some American lawmakers are looking to deport illegal aliens and build a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49785


Thanks Eva. Now put on some clothes and show some modesty. Remember, a lady never shows anything above the ankles or below the neck.

Profiles in Courage

Pulitzer Prizes given out yesterday to journalist for their "courage" in undermining America at every turn. How about we give these people the hangman instead?

Dana Priest of the Washington Post - Showed courage through "persistent" and "painstaking" research to undermine the security of all Americans by reporting on secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times - Showed courage through reporting on National Security Agency's secret domestic eavesdropping program, thus compromising America's efforts to breakup domestic terrorist cells.

Robin Givhan, The Washington Post - Her "witty, closely observed essays that transform fashion criticism into cultural criticism" are clearly a vital contribution to Western culture.

Mike Luckovich, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Drew cartoon spelling "Why" with the names of 2,000 American men and women killed in Iraq. Obviously a honorable way to honor the fallen.

Todd Heisler, Rocky Mountain News, Denver - His photographs provided "haunting, behind-the-scenes look" at the funerals of Colorado Marines who died in the Iraq war. I'm sure he really cares.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Bad Ideas in Modern America

Liberalism - Enough said.

Multi-Culturalism - Simply bullshit. All cultures are good. Well, except traditional white culture that built the world. That was evil. Everyone is the same, only different. Diversity and tolerance are the key to world peace and unity. Blah-blah-blah. What's forgotten is actually having a culture except one based around consumerism and gooey fooey "progressive values". Hence why whites in both America and Europe are presently being overrun by more cultured, breeding races.

Gender-Equality - All genders are equal. Period. Well, except for females, who are clearly superior in all facets of life and can do anything they want regardless of what a man says. All males are inherently aggressive predators and potential rapists who need strict social controls. Well, except for homo and metro sexuals. Throughout history the hetrosexual male has repressed and enslaved the female, keeping civilization from advancing out of the darkness. Today Womyn is free from her bondage and out to repair all the destruction wrought on Mother Earth by male savagery.

A woman's body, a woman's choice. The man has no say if the child shall be born. However, if the woman makes the choice to have the child, the government will force the male, by force of arms if necessary, to pay child support because they are equal partners. It is up the woman though if the man may actually visit the children.

Political Correctness - You have total freedom of speech and thought as long as it confirms to strict guidelines of the liberal elite. Stray outside the lines and you will be alientated from the tribe. Just say something bad about whites, men, conservatives, or Christians a few times per day and you should be OK.

Liberal Media - Mainly made up of the grown children of the rich. Typical journalist had parents who made six or seven figure salaries doing things that could be dubiously be called "work". Said parents send worthless children off to elite private liberal colleges where they learn how the white culture is at fault for all of the world's problems. Children spend the summers during their college years traveling to different countries to broaden their experiences. Total cost for four years of this is around $200,000.

Eventually children graduate from college with their enlightened ideology and decide to go into journalism to bring down the machine. Use family connections to get their first job starting at $70,000.00 and they begin taking out their guilt and self-loathing on the privileged white American middle and working classes who have it too easy when compared to the downtrodden brown peoples of the world.

White Privilege - Bullshit idea made up by rich liberal whites. According to the fairy tale, you have whites who are universally wealthy and privileged exploiting impoverised and desperate minorities on a daily basis. Recent Duke rape scandal fits the mold. Except it doesn't now. No doubt we won't get the "evil black whore attempts to shakedown upstanding naive white student-athletes" storyline from the media, though.

Open Borders - According to liberal intelligenta, it is impossible to control the borders at this point and we all just should get use to unlimited immigration from here on out. If we have to all learn Spanish and deal with overcrowded streets, well, that's just life. See, only bigots would like to keep their culture and traditions. Well, except for blacks and mexicans. It's perfectly acceptable if they have racial pride, foster traditonal culture, and look after their collective interest as a group. Whites however need to learn about the sins of their ancestors, repent, and learn to unlearn their whiteness.

Fucking white liberals are so out of touch with their own culture, race, and traditions at this point the situation is beyond help. Wish the Indians would come back and scalp these ingrates.

President John McCain - Says no American would pick lettuce for $50 per hour. This scum bag should be made into lettuce fertilizer because his chances of becoming President have just been flushed down the toilet.