I have read through the news, including sites such as National Policy Institute and American Renaissance. There is apparently a new racial controversy. Starting July 1st, a new law provision took in effect. There is a new 10% national sales tax on tanning bed sessions. The tax was written within the somewhat recent National Healthcare legislation.
Both of the aforementioned websites included articles discussing the matter. American Renaissance provided two articles(#1 and #2) thus far.
Several oppose it, claiming it entails “disparate impact” on Whites. As the article mentions, even Mainstream Rush Limbaugh has discussed it.
On article #1: With comment #7, Madison Grant claims it is a double-standard, to have a tanning salon tax. Anonymous, in comment #10 sarcastically mentioned that Whites must fund the non-White welfare program; in comment #11, John sought to point a double-standard by suggesting a tax on hair straightening salons.
The comment thread has another emotional response.
“More seriously though, the whole system is about taking ever more from whites: money, property, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, jobs, schools – entire cities have been taken from whites! And it is called ‘progress’
Progress towards what? Is it not obvious yet?
For those who are reluctant to believe their eyes and ears, here it is:
It is all about genocide. The elimination of whites.”–Roger, comment #12.
This is a strong comment by Roger, bringing up the actual ongoing anti-White genocide. In article #2, comment #2 Istvan also points out a double-standard.
I am heartened to see Whites ready to fight against the double-standards of today. Double-standards are greatly placed against us, and any White fighting for White Civil Rights, deserves honor. I am also happy the above commenters will oppose what they perceive as discrimination against Whites. There is nothing to condemn here.
However, I think the other side of the issue is actually correct. And, here is why:
As per Hank Hill’s article #2, comment #4,
Mr. Kennedy is right! We would have no case for ‘racial discrimination.’ The law has pro-health intentions, not “disparate impact.” We really do not want to become like the race-obsessed & nonsense-filled Black mobs, do we?
White advocacy should focus on credible concerns (i.e. Race Quotas, Affirmative Action, forced busing, immigration policy, anti-White school curriculm, etc.); and plus this could be an inadvertently pro-White tax, as it encourages Whites to protect their skin from cancer. [Hence, the bill is a blessing in disguise.]
Hank Hill is correct, We would have no standing in a judicial lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Government, here. Disparate Impact is an extra & quasi-legal reasoning to justify anti-White discrimination, whilst forbidding Whites from doing the same against non-Whites and Muslims. Crying a river over a tanning tax, and getting it repealed would justify the other issues (of anti-White discrimination) of much bigger concern for Whites! So, even if tanning were good for your health-which it isn’t-it would only be a tactical win. We would lose strategically, big time!
Hank also mentions what we should focus on instead. He is again correct. We should fight discrimination against Whites and our demographic displacement-not for a “right” to artificially tan ourselves to death. We want to retain legitimacy, and seek our real interests.
The tanning tax even has benefits. I know it takes money from self-tanning Whites, and re-distributes some money to non-Whites. But it will give some money to dying Whites who may need a transplant or chemotherapy. Look on the bright side.
It will also provide revenue for the U.S., and counter some of our future inflation, as well as discourage harmful behavior. I am sure the Federal Government’s intentions do not include looking out specifically for White people. But, the tax ironically serves White interests, as we patronize tanning beds the most, and have the most to lose from excessive tanning and sunburn. Western Voices World News pointed me to a link about a British woman(Mrs. Cobb) who over-tanned, and now has the potential to develop recurring (and fatal) terminal skin cancer. From article #1, comment #5, Shawn (the female) apparently implies her father died from terminal skin cancer. In the same article thread, Anonymous, comment #17 plays the contrarian-claiming that tanning beds are not dangerous, and wants us to think they are safe while “sun lotion is bad.” [not a verbatim quote from comment 17] He is wrong. Tanning salons do damage White European skin, and contribute to cancer. As evidenced by Mrs. Cobb And Shawn’s father, European skin must be protected from excessive artificial tanning.
Artificial Tanning Tax? No Problem.
American Renaissance article #1:
American Renaissance article #2
article #3 (found through Western Voices World News)
Note: I understand the bibliography is a bit redundant. But, I included it, because the comment references are intermixed-not in full chronological order.